Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

TRADE STATISTICS

THE COMPTROLLER OF HER MAJESTY'S HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1990 be made in the form of a draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

"Options for Change"

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the impact upon local economies following reductions in forces following "Options for Change".

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Local economic and environmental factors will be taken fully into account.

Mr. Fisher: I thank the Minister of State for that informative reply. I welcome the defence cuts, but I am concerned that the Government may implement them using solely market forces and a laissez faire policy. As the Government have at last accepted what we have been urging on them for some time—that there are real benefits in the peace dividend—will the Minister go the extra mile with us and accept that the reductions must be planned? Will he set up an arms conversion agency to plan them, so that when cuts are made in factories such as Radway Green in north Staffordshire and around the country the real benefits and skills there are used for constructive and positive purposes?

Mr. Clark: The cuts are being framed not around market forces but around the minimal requirement to ensure that this country is adequately defended against our enemies. The question of an arms compensation fund or conversion agency, or whatever Labour Members call it from time to time, is a hoary attempt by the Labour party to introduce interventionism and Government subsidy. What you are asking for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I meant "you" plural. Opposition Members seen to be aiming for a scheme whereby good taxpayers' money is used to counter-guess the commercial judgment of arms companies.

Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Leeds there is great pride in the skill and commitment at the Vickers tank factory in Barnbow? Will he confirm that the Challenger tank is performing according to requirements in the middle east and that the company is giving full support to British forces there? When will he be able to reach a decision on the Chieftain replacement?

Mr. Clark: I can confirm what my hon. Friend said. Challenger is performing extremely well in the region. I see the operational readiness figures every month, which show that it has averaged more than 90 per cent. throughout the period that it has been there, which included several difficult and strenuous exercises. Generally, it has taken part to the maximum in the preparations and the manoeuvres that are taking place at the moment.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister is on record as saying that he gives no thought to ethics in regard to defence procurement. Does that now apply to job losses in defence? Is his attitude just to leave defence cuts to market forces, putting thousands of people out of jobs? Is not it clear that the Minister does not have any ethics in relation to this aspect of defence procurement?

Mr. Clark: What a feeble question. The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the much better articulated question that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) asked. I have told him that, at all times, our first consideration must be to ensure that the country is properly defended. All of us agree that job losses are to some extent inevitable as defence orders for particular items of equipment contract. Those companies are extremely successful. Their commercial judgment will govern their decisions and I have every confidence that in the long term they will benefit from conversion to peaceful activity.

Mr. Trotter: Will my hon. Friend confirm that whatever the outcome of the "Options for Change" policy, there will, in the near future, be a need to buy a new main battle tank for the Army? Can he confirm that Challenger not only performed satisfactorily in Saudi, but has met all the milestones of development of Challenger 2 satisfactorily, on time and within cost? Does he accept that it would be wholly wrong economically, militarily and industrially to buy foreign tanks when we have a successful British product available?

Mr. Clark: I am aware of all those factors and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of them. I can confirm that all the milestones have largely been met.

Nuclear Weapons

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Secretary-General of NATO to discuss the role of nuclear weapons.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): I shall meet the Secretary-General of NATO when I am in Brussels later this week for NATO ministerial meetings. Nuclear issues will be among the topics that will be discussed.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the Secretary of State recall last year's NATO commitment to start negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons? Will he move speedily to


support the mandate for talks to bring about the third zero, bearing in mind our commitment, under the non-proliferation treaty, to negotiate for disarmament?

Mr. King: The NATO review is continuing. The hon. Lady will know that, after the successful NATO summit in London in July, it was agreed by all the parties present that the alliance must maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, and that work is continuing. The House will welcome the fact that, clearly, there will be a substantial reduction in nuclear warheads in Europe, but not on a unilateral basis.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members fully support the Ministers' statement earlier this year? We accept the mix of nuclear weapons and we understand that that will be necessary as long as the Soviet Union—and not only the Soviet Union—retains a nuclear capability and to ensure that we can defend ourselves against threats from outside the NATO area.

Mr. King: I well understand why my hon. Friend makes that shrewd and perceptive point. Although we certainly wish to see far fewer nuclear weapons in the world, his point has great validity.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: What assurances will the Secretary of State be able to give the secretary-general when he meets him about the effectiveness of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent? In the light of the reasons for the scrapping of Warspite, will he be able to assure the secretary-general that the United Kingdom is capable of keeping one submarine on station at all times?

Mr. King: That is our determination, as we made clear to the House.

Community Charge

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had recently concerning the effect of the community charge upon service men.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I have had discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend is well aware of my long-standing concern about the effect of the community charge on service men. Can he confirm that certain councils are not following Government guidelines to waive community charge for service men who are serving in the Gulf? Does he agree that that is disgraceful?

Mr. Hamilton: Indeed, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. The Government have now advised local authorities to remove personnel who have been posted to the Gulf or to other overseas locations from the community charge register. I am happy to say that the great majority of councils have complied with that advice. However, Gosport and Helston councils have refused to do so.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is far too important an issue to be left to the whim of local government? Is he aware that local councils will be looking at such community charge payers as a further means of increasing the money that they will be able to spend and

that they will be reluctant to exclude tens of thousands of service men from paying the community charge year after year? Should not the community charge be paid directly from the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment are looking at the whole question of the future of the community charge and I am sure that they will take the position of service men into account. On the question whether people are removed from the register when they are posted abroad, we would appeal to the public-spiritedness of the local authorities concerned. It is very disappointing that those two councils have not complied.

European Fighter Aircraft

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the development European fighter aircraft are now under construction; and when he expects the completed prototype to undertake its first flight.

Mr. Alan Clark: All eight of the development European fighter aircraft are now under construction. The first prototype is due to fly in late spring 1992 in Germany.

Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that, by the late 1990s, the European fighter aircraft will be a vital replacement for the Phantom aircraft, which will be obsolete by then? In view of that fact, and in view of the recurrent rumours that we hear about the German Government's position, can my hon. Friend give us a categorical assurance that the aircraft will, indeed, reach the production stage?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The aircraft should ensure our air superiority in the late 1990s and in the early part of the next century. My hon. Friend cited the Phantom as an example, but the EFA will be superior to all existing fighter aircraft, including American F-18 and F-15 enhancements. I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks: the British Government are fully behind the project and intend to see it completed.

Mr. Cryer: But is not the EFA project a collaborative project, which depends on other countries' participation? Instead of depending wholly on defence contracts of this nature, which are extremely costly—at £7 billion in this case—would not it be prudent for the Government to develop civilian aircraft prototypes so that we can participate in the developments in civil aircraft? Otherwise, if the project fails, thousands of people—including highly skilled technicians—may be thrown on the dole as a result of the Government's lack of awareness.

Mr. Clark: In principle, what the hon. Gentleman says is indisputable, but, unfortunately, there is very little civil demand for a single-seater aircraft with the speed of Mach 2.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend happy that the major elements that make up the European fighter aircraft have been developed satisfactorily and as far as is possible in the experimental stage before being incorporated in the main contract? Will he confirm that the plane has an expectancy of service well into the year 2000 and beyond?

Mr. Clark: I can certainly confirm that. Component development and testing are part of the development phase, to which all the participants have now signed up.

"Options for Change"

Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a further statement on the study, "Options for Change".

Mr. Tom King: Consistent with the broad proposals for change that I outlined in July, we have already announced the early retirement of 11 Royal Naval warships and the decision not to proceed with the order for the eighth batch of Tornado attrition aircraft. We have most recently announced our plans for withdrawing units from RAF Wildenrath and RAF Gutersloh. Further announcements on other changes should be possible in the coming months.

Mr. Duffy: Whatever reshaping of the armed forces follows the review, does the Secretary of State agree that defence of the United Kingdom air space will remain the fundamental responsibility of the Government and that it will call for early warning?perhaps most important, airborne early warning—Can the Secretary of State comment on the progress of the airborne warning and communication system?

Mr. King: I certainly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. We shall continue to depend on a comprehensive air defence capability and it will be our clear responsibility to ensure that that is achieved. The AWACS programme is proceeding on time and the first planes will be starting service in the first months of the coming year.

Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be great disappointment in the north of England if, as a result of "Options for Change", the long-promised move of the department of quality assurance from Woolwich to Teesside did not take place? Does he accept that, if that department were not moved, the only acceptable outcome for people in the north would be for the Defence General Directorate of Quality Assurance to be cancelled in its entirety?

Mr. King: I can assure my hon. Friend that the answer to his first question is yes, as he has never ceased to remind me of it. I congratulate him, together with other hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), on their diligence in the matter. I well understand my hon. Friend's concern. There is more disappointment to come for many hon. Members. We cannot talk about "Options for Change" or, as others do somewhat unrealistically at times, about the peace dividend and not recognise that a peace dividend may be a loss-of-jobs dividend for many people. We shall obviously seek to anticipate that and to give the greatest warning that we can, but I should be wrong if I concealed from the House the reality of what we are embarked on, which was generally supported by the House, but it has consequences, as hon. Members will understand.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State go further and elaborate on what the Minister of State said in a rather glib answer? While the product and the assets might be specific, skills are less flexible. In view of his serious remarks, will the Secretary of State immediately enter into discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

Scotland and get in touch with Scottish Enterprise to ensure that a skills survey is done and that jobs in the public sector, mainly in the Ministry of Defence in Scotland, are not lost to Scotland and that skills are not dissipated?

Mr. King: It did not need an announcement from me for many companies to make their own assessment of the future, and all my contacts with the industries concerned have shown that there has been considerable diversification. I should trust the ability of those companies to identify where markets are likely to be rather than try to pre-plan them centrally, which has proved disastrous in the past. Obviously, we recognise a keen interest in the matter. We shall seek to keep hon. Members closely informed on their constituency and industrial interests. We are proceeding with "Options for Change". I can confirm that, as was made clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), and it will have implications for several hon. Members.

Mr. Franks: When my right hon. Friend makes his further statement, will he be in a position to state the time scale for the SSN20, which is the follow-on from the Trafalgar class submarine? If there is to be any delay in the statement, will he bear in mind how helpful it would be to the company and, more important, to the work force and the whole community of Barrow if the Government's intentions could be made clear?

Mr. King: I understand my hon. Friend's close interest in those matters, which he represents to us most energetically. Obviously, I understand the importance to all the people of Barrow of an early announcement. I cannot comment any further today, but I confirm that we are very conscious of the matter and will seek to keep in close touch with my hon. Friend.

CFE Treaty

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the defence implications for the United Kingdom of the conventional forces in Europe treaty signed in Paris in November.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The consequent improvements to European security and stability will be of substantial benefit to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Battle: While we welcome the encouraging peace developments in the Paris treaty, we would all accept that that is in the worst economic circumstances for manufacturing industry, in particular engineering. If the Government can subsidise consultancies for companies under the enterprise initiative, which is paid for by taxpayers, why are they so resistant to setting up an agency to tackle the conversion from arms manufacture to peacetime and civil industry?

Mr. Hamilton: The reason is simple-it is because we have experienced central planning from Government and interference in industry and it has been notoriously unsuccessful. The most unproductive companies have been supported and that has led to reducing the chance of survival of successful companies.

Mr. Colvin: Now that the CFE treaty has been signed and the German elections are out of the way, why are our partners in the European fighter programme dragging


their feet over their whole-hearted commitment to it? The answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was welcome, but is Britain to proceed unilaterally with the project? What about our partners, bearing in mind the fact that next year some of the items with long lead times will have to be ordered?

Mr. Hamilton: I can assure my hon. Friend that our partners in the EFA project are signed up to the development stage, so, whatever we have been hearing, I do not think that they have the option of pulling out.

Dr. Reid: The loss of jobs in the defence industry should be a matter of great concern to us all, but I should like to put another matter to the Minister because his answer was less than forthcoming. The word "vacuous" sprang to mind, but it is probably too substantial a word. What progress has been made on the follow-on negotiations to CFE-1? When are those negotiations likely to begin? Can the Minister say something about the pledge in the Queen's Speech that the Government would be "active" in their pursuit of further conventional disarmament? What activities have they undertaken so far? What approach are the Government adopting? Finally, what are they seeking to achieve in further disarmament negotiations?

Mr. Hamilton: Bodies are already meeting to plan the way ahead. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the CFE treaty still has to be ratified. The nearest estimate that I have heard of when that is due to happen is July next year. However, thought is being given to the follow-on from here and to what form that should take. Discussions are currently taking place on that matter.

Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that when, under the terms of the Paris treaty, various sites in Europe are removed from military use, they will be restored to their former condition and that there will not be any toxic or long-term damage at those sites such as we have seen following the withdrawal of similar forces from the Warsaw pact and the eastern bloc?

Mr. Hamilton: Any reductions in any force levels in central Europe will be carried out in conjunction with NATO to ensure that the residual forces have a coherence and military stature that makes some sense.

Radiation Exposure

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and ratings have been exposed to nuclear radiation in the past four years; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): Our records for the four years from 1986 to 1989 show that radiation dosimeters were issued respectively to 2,256, 2,546, 2,602 and 3,224 naval service personnel.

Mr. Skinner: Why, in a democracy, do the Government not tell the Select Committee on Defence and the House of Commons the answer to the question that is on the Order Paper, which is: how many people have suffered from radiation? If the Minister cannot give us those figures, why, now that the cold war has ended, do we have nuclear submarines at all? Why not scrap them and use the money for the national health service?

Mr. Carlisle: It is a basic principle of Ministry of Defence policy that all exposure to radiation should be fully justified and reduced wherever possible. The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not fair and I am sure that he has read the recent report from the Select Committee on Defence, which states:
We have been impressed by the firm commitment of the MOD and its contractors to achieving the highest standards of radiological protection for Service and civilian personnel.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that most officers and ratings would be more likely to receive high doses of radiation from living in Cornwall or from flying in high-flying aircraft than from serving in nuclear submarines?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Exposure to radiation from the atmosphere is often substantially more than that received by naval personnel.

Mr. Boyes: That is simply not true. It is a fact that because of serious problems with the Polaris fleet, naval personnel have been subject to levels of radiation that are in excess of the limit advised by the National Radiological Protection Board, which is 15 mSv per year. The Government are acting with gross irresponsibility in their attitude not only to naval strategy, but, more especially, to the health and safety of submariners.

Mr. Carlisle: That is simply not true. We should not allow any naval personnel to suffer high levels of exposure. In fact, the exposure rates for people working inside submarines under the sea are much lower because they are protected from the exposure in the atmosphere to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred.

Low Flying

Mr. Steen: T: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding low-flying aircraft over national parks.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: My Department's policy is to spread low flying as widely as possible to minimise disturbance to those on the ground. This means that most areas, including national parks, will see some low flying.

Mr. Steen: I recognise the need for training flights, but is the Minister aware that the national parks were set up as havens of tranquillity for the nation? Yet the public are banned from 100 square miles of Dartmoor for 10 months a year due to live firing by the Ministry of Defence, and when there are low-flying aircraft one needs earplugs to enjoy any recreation in the district. Will the Minister ensure that for two months of the year, in the summer, low-flying training is conducted elsewhere than in the national parks?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend has always been a doughty fighter on behalf of the national parks, but I think that he understands that we have to fly low if we are to have good pilots and an effective air force. The best policy is to spread low flying as widely as possible. If we were to keep low flying away from the national parks, we should have to concentrate it in more populated regions, but we try hard to keep low flying away from the national parks at weekends.

Mr. Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the British Telecom telephone system in the royal ordnance factories operates between 7 am and 5 pm, and if a low-flying aeroplane overshot one of the national parks and crashed into any of those royal ordnance factories in Great Britain those factories would be without a telephone service? Does the Secretary of State appreciate how serious this is? The royal ordnance factory in my constituency has one of the most pathetic telephone exchange systems—[Interruption.] Is the Secretary of State going to answer me?

Mr. Carlisle: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but safety is our prime concern and only the most experienced pilots are allowed to fly low.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who unreservedly support the need for the Royal Air Force to be capable of flying low and fast, believe—as I do, representing 2,000 square miles of beautiful highland Scotland—that our tranquillity and peace is as important as anyone else's, but we appreciate that it must be sacrificed if the Royal Air Force is to continue to be capable of carrying out the role that it is now playing in the Gulf?

Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps more than any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) understands the true needs of the defence of our country.

Submarines (Log Books)

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the log books of all British submarines for the period between 12 noon and 4 pm on 5 September 1988.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: No, Sir. However, unclassified extracts from Royal Navy submarine log books for the period in question have been given to the High Court. We always make every effort to help the courts, subject only to security considerations.

Dr. Thomas: My question refers to the log relevant to the Inspire. Since the incident involving that ship, the Government have made it known that the Royal Navy held some responsibility for the loss of the Antares. There has been a loss of probably 53 people, involving 16 trawlers between Britain and Ireland since 1980. Will the Government set up an independent inquiry into those tragic losses?

Mr. Hamilton: The loss of the Antares was a great tragedy, but 380 fishing boats have been lost in the past 10 years, of which the Royal Navy has admitted responsibility for the sinking of one. The question whether the loss of the Antares was the responsibility of a Royal Navy submarine still remains to be confirmed by a court of inquiry.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great apprehension and fear among fishermen using the Irish sea and among their families? Will he do something positive to alleviate it?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. A meeting between flag officers of submarines and representatives of the fishing industry is organised for this coming Friday, and I hope

that they will be able to reach some agreement about an exchange of information which will be helpful in this matter.

Dr. Godman: In view of the tragic sinking of the mot or fishing vessel Antares, surely when submarines steam through the traditional fishing grounds in the Irish sea and in and around the Firth of Clyde, there is a simple solution in this post cold war era: the Minister should instruct the commanders of the submarines to sail their vessels on the surface. Does the Minister agree that that would bring heartfelt relief to fishermen and their families throughout the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic?

Mr. Hamilton: We must accept that the accident involving the Antares was exceptional. There have been only two such incidents, if this one involved a submarine. There has been only one other incident in the past 10 years. We have to ensure that our submarines operate secretly, they have to operate under water and it is important that they operate in inshore waters. I am afraid that that is an essential requirement of good submarine capability.

The Gulf

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British troops in the Gulf states.

Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of casualties in the event of war in the Gulf; and what medical treatment arrangements have been made.

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are now in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the total number of troops deployed by the United Kingdom in the middle east to date.

Mr. Tom King: The Government hope that economic pressure and the diplomatic moves now under way will secure Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. However, by the adoption of Security Council resolution 678, the international community has shown that it is also prepared to use all necessary means, including military force. To help ensure that Saddam Hussein will face a credible military option, more than 30,000 United Kingdom forces, including medical and other support services, are now being committed to the Gulf. Around 17,000 of those are already there. If Saddam Hussein continues to defy the United Nations resolutions and force has to be used, the stronger the allied force, the better the chances of keeping casualties low.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, if the worst comes to the worst and war breaks out over Kuwait, the Tornados built at Salmesbury in Preston, Lancashire, will probably save thousands of lives of troops on the ground by destroying enemy aircraft. Will he therefore examine the need for spares and for further aircraft, with a possible view to saving many of the thousands of jobs in Preston and at the factory that British Aerospace plans to close?

Mr. King: I can certainly confirm that the Tornado, with its strike attack capability and night-flying capability,


and the Tornado F3 air defence variant, are key elements in our capability. I can say nothing more about further orders at this stage, but I certainly pay tribute to the quality of the aircraft.

Mr. James Lamond: Given the tremendous response by the people of this country to the telethon in aid of the Save the Children Fund and the Government's claim to be acting in the name of these same people in seriously contemplating launching an attack which must result in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children in the Gulf, does the Minister detect an irony in that?

Mr. King: The Government do not want to see conflict, and we do not want to launch any attack. We want to see freedom and justice for the people of Kuwait. The Government and the whole world, with the exception of Iraq, have made that clear and so has the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party and his Front-Bench spokesmen. There has been overwhelming support in the House for the need to back the strong stance of the United Nations. No sane person seeks conflict, but if one is not prepared to use the threat of the military option, the alternative is the continuing enslavement of Kuwait, the continuing subjugation of its people and the continuing imprisonment of the hostages.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Secretary of State for Defence recognise that I have repeatedly tried to get comments from the former Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and himself on the estimates that have been made the likely level of casualties if war were to break out? What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to Brigadier Patrick Cordingley, commander of the Desert Rats, who believes that if a war breaks out there will be a bloodbath on both sides, and that the British Government should tell the British people officially that the British casualty rate will be about 15 per cent. or, on the figures that given today, that 4,500 troops will die? Does the Secretary of State not realise that an increasing number of people in this country do not believe that that sacrifice is warranted and that, frankly, blood and oil do not mix?

Mr. King: The first thing that the hon. Gentleman had better learn is that when people quote casualty figures they include minor and serious casualties and not just fatalities. It is quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to offer that to the House because it is a total error. I will not bandy figures with the hon. Gentleman. I have answered his question. At the end of my answer I gave the precise reason for Britain's sending more forces and I also said why the United States, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had increased recruitment. It is precisely to ensure that if the military option had to be used—and nobody wants to see that—the operation would be short, sharp and quick so that casualties on the allied side could be kept to a minimum. That is the reality of what we want to see.

Mr. Nellist: The right hon. Gentleman should not have sold them the arms in the first place.

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman cares about life and the avoidance of casualties, he should turn one eighth of that volume in the direction of Baghdad and tell Saddam Hussein to obey the United Nations. Then we would see a solution.

Mr. Squire: In direct contradiction to the last two questions, is my right hon. Friend aware that the British

public are very well aware of the efforts being made by the free world to free a part of the world that is now subjugated, and if those efforts fail they fully expect our forces to play a part in freeing Kuwait in defence of basic human rights?

Mr. King: I think that the whole House, and all those who have considered these matters, will admit that the nations of the free world have stood together in a way that one would not have thought possible as recently as a month or two ago. The unanimity and agreement of the five permanent members of the Security Council have been important factors. In a very real sense, the authority of the United Nations is now at stake.

Mr. O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for the arrangements that he made for some of my hon. Friends and me to visit the Gulf. We are conscious of the high morale of our troops, their measured approach, their professionalism and the respect that they enjoy from their allies. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that our troops have the spares and supplies that they require to sustain the armoured divisions and especially the tanks?
Secondly, on a more domestic note, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that every effort is being made to improve the dreadful telephone facilities which are the main means of contact between our troops and their loved ones and that British Telecom and Mercury are being given the kick in the backside that they deserve because of their failure over the past few months to provide an adequate and cheap means of communication between our troops and their loved ones in the United Kingdom?

Mr. King: I am grateful for the hon. Member's thanks, and I am glad that the Select Committee, Opposition spokesmen and others found it a valuable visit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not pick up those reports of shortages while in Saudi Arabia. I have seen newspaper reports here, but in Saudi Arabia our forces feel that they are getting the support for which they are looking. We are determined to see that they do and I shall not rest until we succeed. Tomorrow, I am on my way to NATO and I shall have with me a short list of suggestions of some of the matters on which our allies can help us so as to ensure that we have the resources.
We are working hard on the telephone connections. I am grateful to British Telecom and Mercury for what they are doing. However, the House must understand that there will be problems when 20,000 people try to ring home around Christmas day. On top of that, the United States forces will also wish to make telephone calls. We shall do the best that we can.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in deciding whether to exercise the military option, the Government and their allies will have to take into account not only the ghastly things that are happening in Kuwait, but the even more terrible consequences that could stem from Saddam Hussein being seen to get away with the aggression that he has committed and with developing nuclear weapons?

Mr. King: I agree with my hon. Friend. One or two of the interventions from Opposition Members could have come only from people ignorant of what has been happening in Kuwait. No decent person could turn his fire on the United States and the United Kingdom and excuse


Saddam Hussein's Government and the Iraqi forces their unspeakable behaviour in Kuwait and their treatment of people there.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Prime Minister of New Zealand. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Archer: Has the right hon. Gentleman found time to consider which of the policies in which he participated over the past 11 years he now regrets and proposes to change? If the answer is that the Major revolution amounts to no more than requiring back-seat drivers to belt up, what benefits have the public received in exchange for the expensive telephone bills incurred by Government Departments in the course of the past month's plotting?

The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman one thing. There is one back-seat injunction that I shall not follow—I shall not turn left.

Mr. Paice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Paice: Has my right hon. Friend seen this morning's press tribute to his and my county of Cambridgeshire for the way it has given as much management control to schools as if those schools had adopted grant-maintained status? Will he compare that with the proposal to introduce new, politically appointed bureaucracies, which may aim high but will inevitably lower standards to that of the lowest standard achievable, as one would expect of Labour party policies?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I saw this morning's papers and I know that Cambridgeshire county council has been innovative in education for a long time. I am delighted to see what it is now doing. I agree that expensive bureaucratic control of education will only withdraw resources from the classroom, whereas our policy is to ensure that resources remain in the classroom.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to the personal debt of gratitude that he owes to the national health service. Does he think that it would be right to discharge that debt by getting rid of hospital opt-out?

The Prime Minister: Self-government within the NHS will improve management. That is why so many hospitals are seeking to opt out. In the past 10 years, more resources have been added to the NHS than anyone could have imagined. There is no doubt that in future the NHS will be at the centre of our concerns.

Mr. Kinnock: It is clear that the Prime Minister intends to make no change for the better in the NHS. Is he not

aware that whenever a ballot has been held, consultants, hospital doctors, nurses, general practitioners and the general public have all voted by huge majorities against opting out? Does he realise that opt-out will intensify the crisis in the NHS? As the NHS has never done anything but good by him, why is he doing it so much harm?

Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that to be the case, should not he make a start by trying to convince his constituents about the Hinchingbrooke hospital in his constituency, where waiting lists have doubled in the past two years? The local press has referred to a wall of opposition against opting out. Will the right hon. Gentleman support his constituents?

The Prime Minister: Unlike some Opposition Members, I unfailingly use the NHS. Its future is entirely secure, with increased funding, as it has been for the past 10 years.

The Prime Minister: Self-government is being proposed by the consultants and the staff at the Hinchingbrooke hospital, which holds the enormous affection of people in the area. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman something else about that hospital it was not available under the Labour Government—it was this Government who provided it.

Mr. Higgins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Prime Minister and also on the speech that he made earlier today, which I thought embodied the spirit of the late lain Macleod. In that context, and in that spirit, may I ask him to give urgent consideration to two particular injustices—first, the position of those haemophiliacs suffering from AIDS as a result of blood products provided by the national health service and, secondly, the position of those who suffered as a result of being exposed to radiation from the atomic tests carried out immediately after world war 2? I do not expect him to give an answer off the top of his head—that would be unfashionable—but would he give those matters urgent consideration?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, I like to consider matters before reaching a conclusion. However, I shall certainly accept his injunction and do so.

Mr. Ashdown: When the Prime Minister gave his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment what we now understand to be carte blanche for a fundamental review of the poll tax, did he rule out the option of abolishing it?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend and I will be discussing later today the precise remit for consideration.

Mr. Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider the latest computer analysis from the Institute of Directors on the top-performing companies in Europe? Has he noted that there are more United Kingdom companies than German or French companies in the top 100 and does not that say far more about the underlying strength of the British economy than the economic illiteracy that we hear from the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. There is absolutely no doubt about the revolution in the prospects for this country over the past decade.

Henley-on-Thames

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Henley-on-Thames.

The Prime Minister: I have no present plans to do so.

Mr. Skinner: When the Prime Minister finally gets round to going to Henley and perhaps having a rubber chicken dinner with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he tell the voters of Henley why he has managed to offend the Welsh, the blacks and others—[Interruption.] including women, in his first seven days in office? Is that how he intends to start building his classless society?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was writing down the question that he intended his hon. Friend to ask and not the one that his hon. Friend did ask. In so far as the question presumably relates to Mr. Taylor, the prospective Conservative candidate in Cheltenham, the reported remarks—which I understand have been denied—are not sentiments that have any place in our party.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the branch line to Henley-on-Thames remains intact? Does he recognise that if more decisions of that nature had been taken by British Rail in the past few years, and fewer decisions of the kind taken following the disastrous Beeching report, many more of our fellow citizens would today have the opportunity to travel by train which has been denied them by the closures of recent years?

The Prime Minister: I was aware of the excellent service from Henley. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment reports to me regularly on it.

Engagements

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Illsley: Is the Prime Minister aware that in some areas, particularly Sheffield, general practitioners have been prevented from prescribing certain drugs to patients, in particular young children? Without rattling out the old figures about how many patients are being treated under the NHS, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether under his Government patients and, in particular, young children will be denied the medication and treatment that they need?

The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman that the district health authority in his area has substantially more cash than in previous years, that the treatment of in-patients and out-patients has risen and that the quantum and quality of health treatment rises yearly.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one group of our citizens who should not be subjected to the community charge are British hostages in the Gulf?

Will he agree to issue an advice to that effect, or even a directive under primary legislation, so that uncertainty, anxiety and anger can be removed?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will find that we have already sent such advice to local authorities.

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the case of my constituent, John Hall, who is dying of leukaemia, which he contracted while working on Christmas Island? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the first acts of his new Administration, reverse the Government's policy and in compassion, humanity and justice, provide John Hall and the other nuclear test veterans with the compensation that the House and the country believe that they so richly deserve?

The Prime Minister: I will examine the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am not familiar with the details of his constituent. I will discuss it and examine it.

Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that today's performance has demonstrated that the two main parties have both the leaders and the policies for the next general election—for us to win, and for them to lose?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend It is not for me to reply for the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), but if he ever needs a campaign team, I will lend him mine.

Mr. Rees: The Prime Minister will recall that the Queen's Speech promised that a Bill would be introduced to give our courts jurisdiction to try alleged war criminals. Does that promise still stand?

The Prime Minister: That Bill is in the Government's programme and it will be presented to the House. There will be suggested amendments that the House will want to examine.

Mr. Rhodes James: Those of us of a particular generation well remember when the Russian and British people were together, when Mrs. Churchill led the campaign to support the Russian people. In the present circumstances, will not only the British Government but the British people respond as they did during the last war?

The Prime Minister: There is considerable concern in this country about the difficulties faced by the Russian people and by President Gorbachev. There is also great warmth in this country for the changes brought about in the Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev's presidency. That feeling exists not only in the House but throughout the European Community and I have no doubt that the situation in Russia will be one of many matters discussed at forthcoming Community meetings.

National Health Service Trusts

Mr. Robin Cook: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his decisions on the applications by hospitals and other units to become self-governing.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement about which national health service hospitals and units will become self-governing trusts in April 1991.
In answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I am announcing today my decisions on the 66 trust applications that I have been considering for implementation in April next year. I am also announcing my decisions on a further 111 expressions of interest that hospitals and other units have submitted for becoming NHS trusts on 1 April 1992. A full list of all my decisions is in the Vote Office and the Library.
The House will appreciate from the number of applications that it is not practicable to read them all out, or to give detailed descriptions of the units included in each trust.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there are several hundred separate hospitals and units involved, affecting the constituencies of several hundred right hon. and hon. Members. I thought that it would be more helpful to give right hon. and hon. Members the information in written form initially.
Given the Opposition's request for a full statement, I am delighted to have this opportunity to restate the principles that underpinned my decisions. NHS trusts are a central element in our plans for reforming the NHS and improving the service that it provides for patients. No one should be in any doubt that trusts are, and will remain, within the NHS. They are not opting out of the NHS. They are opting into greater freedom to run their own affairs—freedom from much of the bureaucracy of district and regional health authorities, and indeed, Whitehall.
We have not been short of volunteers, and today's announcement is the result of a very vigorous selection process. In making my decisions, I have been concerned to satisfy myself on four key criteria. They are benefits to patients; leadership and management; involvement of key professional staff in management; and financial viability.
Against that background, I am delighted to say that, having considered all the applications and the comments made on them during the consultation process, I have decided to establish 56 NHS trusts to become operational on 1 April next year. I believe that those trusts will use the greater powers and freedoms that we are giving them to pioneer further improvements to the quality of care for patients that are at the heart of our reforms.
I received 10 other applications for trust status that had also been the subject of extensive consultation. The sponsors of two of those applications, from the proposed North Devon healthcare trust and the proposed Brighton hospitals trust, have asked me to defer their applications, and I have agreed. I am confident that those applicants have the potential to become successful trusts in the future.
I am confident also that the remaining eight applicants have the same potential to become successful. trusts. However, I believe that, given the very significant management tasks that they face, it would not be right to

establish them as trusts now. I know that that decision will come as a disappointment, and I have written to each trust setting out my decisions.
I have also decided that a further 111 hospitals and other units that expressed an interest in trust status can proceed to work up applications to become operational in April 1992. I should make it clear that those expressions of interest in no way commit the hospitals or other units to making an application. I shall also be considering four further expressions of interest from colleges of nursing.
The response to the trust initiative shows that those working in the NHS understand, and are keen to take advantage of, the very real benefits of trust status. It is very likely that over time, trust status will be the natural model for units providing patient care. My decision to establish the first wave of trusts marks a further step in the implementation of our programme of reforms. It underlines the Government's commitment to the NHS and to improving the quality of care for patients.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, until we tabled this private notice question, it was his intention to make his statement at a press conference at 3.30 pm? On reflection, does he not agree that a statement of such importance was better made in the House than to the press, and that his protestations of delight would be more convincing had he offered a statement to the House in the first place?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that today's announcement makes a mockery of the consultation process? Is he aware that more than 70 ballots have been held in the communities served by the hospitals concerned? Does he know—does he care—that, on average, 83 per cent. of local general practitioners voted against the applications, and that an average of 88 per cent. of local staff voted against them? Has anyone dared to tell him that the people of Bristol voted six to one against the application by the hospitals that serve his constituency?
How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that today's decision gives local people local control, when he has flatly ignored local opinion? Why will not he publish the report that he himself commissioned to audit the business plans of the applicants? Has he seen the independent report produced by New Church and Co., which concludes that many of the applications are almost totally devoid of realistic financial objectives? How can he ask Parliament to accept the transfer of ownership of hospital assets worth over £3,000 million without serious financial figures?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the boards of directors of the trusts, which he tells us will not leave the NHS, will own the hospitals and be able to sell parts of them; that they will hire the staff, and will be able to fire the staff; that they can decide on patient services and close patient services; and that, in every regard, their powers will be identical to those of the directors of any hospital now in the private sector? Given those powers, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who will be appointed as directors? Will they be the same business men—the same friends of the Conservative party—with whom the Government have already peopled health authorities?
Does the Secretary of State understand that forcing those hospitals to go it alone as trading enterprises will break up the NHS—that, after today, those 56 units will no longer co-operate with other hospitals in serving the public, but will compete against them for business? Is not the game given away by the many applications that. The


right hon. Gentleman has approved today from those who make it only too plain that they intend to use NHS facilities to treat more private patients?
Finally, will the Secretary of State be generous enough to acknowledge the authorship of the policy that he has confirmed today? May I tempt him to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who chaired the NHS review body that came up with the policies that she put into practice? Does he appreciate that his announcement demonstrated that, while the faces may change, the health policies of the present Government stay the same, and will convince many who use the hospitals on his list of the case for a Labour Government who will bring those hospitals smartly back into the local NHS?

Mr. Waldegrave: Over the years, I have noticed that, when the Opposition do not have much of a case, they try to make a synthetic row about the manner of an announcement. So keen was I to hide this important announcement that I wrote to every hon. Member involved and provided all the material in the Vote Office. I am delighted to have the opportunity to reaffirm this policy.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made a point about ballots and asked whether anybody had dared to tell me things. I wonder whether anyone in his action groups up and down the land dared to tell him that many of the ballots that he quoted have been reversed. I happen to know of one near my constituency in Weston-super-Mare, where the ballot that he quoted, which went one way, was subsequently reversed by 80 to 20. The hon. Gentleman quoted Bristol. I know a little more about Bristol than he does. There was a subsequent ballot there, too. Did anybody dare to tell him that? I think not.
The point of trusts, surely, is to meet the objective that all of us have heard from our constituents up and down the land for many years: "Can't we get the management of hospitals back to hospitals, where it belongs?" How many times have we heard that in our constituencies?
The hon. Gentleman said that assets can be sold off. What nonsense. The instruments to set up the trusts, which we shall lay today and tomorrow, will reserve powers to the Secretary of State—powers similar to those to prevent district authorities from doing the same thing.

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct for the Minister to speak knowing that he is not telling us the truth?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Flannery: I shall reword it in case you, Mr. Speaker, throw me out, as you have before. I withdraw—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please leave this to me.

Mr. Flannery: Is it right for the Secretary of State to be so economical with the truth?

Mr. Speaker: Unhappily, that phrase has come into the language.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who may have become over-excited, will find nothing untrue or economical with

the truth in what I have said. On the contrary, up and down the land, campaigns have been somewhat economical with the truth. I have one here that was issued in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), which refers to
Opting out of the NHS
and concerns over opting out of the NHS. There is no question whatever of any of these hospitals opting out of the NHS.
The hon. Member for Livingston asked me to confirm whether we stand by the policies that we passed. Of course we do. They will bring benefits to patients and will achieve devolved management of the kind that both sides of the House, if they think about it quietly, should be in favour of.

Mr. John Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman makes his point of order, may I say that it will take up time? This is a private notice question and time is limited. What is the point of order?

Mr. Battle: The point of order is that it is difficult when the Conservative party plays games with the language. The phrase "opt out" was clearly used in the White Paper, but now we are being told that that is not the language that is being used. How can we oppose the policy?

Mr. Speaker: This is a private notice question. As Front-Bench spokesmen have said, the House is being informed rather than the press. We shall no doubt return to it on numerous occasions.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that self-government is the natural progression and development of the purchaser-provider concept, which now has widespread support, and will afford not only local control but local decision making to our hospitals? He announced that 56 hospitals have been successful in applying for trust status. Will he confirm that their plans include, far from a standstill in services, more consultants, a reduction in waiting times, renovation of wards, closer co-operation with general practitioners and speedier development of the community care programme? Does not that show that, under this Government, the best resources will be matched with the best management?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In every organisation of which I know, the management is better when it is brought nearer to where the real work is done. The instinctive reaction of the Labour party is always to go for an administrative, top-down and bureaucratic solution; that is not the best solution in each application—and I have studied them all closely—there are interesting and attractive proposals for how the hospitals will be improved.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Secretary of State aware that this confirmation of a Thatcherite approach to the health service today represents 56 nails in the coffin of a nationally funded and nationally delivered system of health care? If the consultation between self-governing trusts and the health authorities is as much a mockery as the consultation carried out by the Department of Health in assessing the applications, what hope can there be at local level that there will be a proper spread of service delivery in the


health service? Did the right hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whom he supported in the recent election for the leadership of his party, when he said that he considered that a review of the health service reforms would be one of the top items on his agenda if he became Prime Minister? Finally——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be unfair to the House during a private notice question for the hon. Gentleman to continue. He has asked his questions.

Mr. Waldegrave: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to talk such clichés. The hospitals will prove him wrong by providing better services to patients and people who have mouthed such clichés will look extremely foolish. I drafted that part of my right hon. Friend's speech, so I am thoroughly in favour of it. We shall be looking for further improvements, but the basic principles of the reform will go ahead.

Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that Bromley health authority will be disappointed that its applications have been refused. Will my right hon. Friend tell the authorities whose applications have been refused the grounds on which he felt unable to grant them? Will he also confirm that any subsequent applications, either in similar or in amended form, by those authorities will not be prejudiced by the fact that they have been refused in the first wave?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend those assurances. I have written today to the unit managers concerned to set out the problems that I thought needed to be further addressed before the trusts could go forward. I very much hope that that applications will come forward again next year and that they will win approval.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Under the public consultation, of the eight opt-outs that have been announced in the South West region, six voted overwhelmingly against the proposal. The Secretary of State clearly needs reminding that at the Bristol United hospitals—all the services in Bristol that cover his and my constituencies—the public consultation exercise conducted by the region produced a result of 83:1 against. The staff ballot conducted by the district health authority produced a result of 2,943 against and 255 in favour, although the Minister will not know that. He did not bother to take part in the consultation although he was a consultee. What right does he now have to override public opinion in Bristol? How can he call himself a democrat?

Mr. Waldegrave: The trouble with that argument is that the pre-printed forms and postcards were, in many cases, wholly misleading. An organisation called Labour Health watch—to which the hon. Lady may subscribe put roundstuff that said:
We the undersigned totally object to … hospital or any of it's … outlying clinics or wards 'opting out' of the NHS.
One of the trust managers told me that he would sign a petition against his hospital opting out of the NHS and he would be quite right.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: With reference to the 1992 applications for NHS trust status, does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents are strongly opposed to the acute services and the community services in Macclesfield asking separately for trust status? Will he take it from me that there is strong support in my area for

the concept of the health authority as a whole opting for self-governing status? Will he instruct Sir Donald Wilson, the regional chairman, to stop interfering in my area? Those who serve on the health authority, the staff, the nurses, the patients and the people in my area want the whole health authority to opt for self-governing status. Will my right hon. Friend bring that about?

Mr. Waldegrave: There are arguments on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Opposition Members would be unwise to claim my hon. Friend as an ally, as he is arguing powerfully for an NHS trust, albeit a whole district trust. I shall have to consider the arguments carefully. There is an argument as to whether it is better for the mental health institutions to form part of a separate trust or of a whole district trust. We shall consider those matters carefully in the months ahead.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that it would be helpful if he published the assessments of the financial viability of those exceedingly doubtful business plans? With the exception of one small group of consultants, everyone in my constituency totally opposes the application, and the cavalier manner in which the Minister is ignoring local people's views will be justly interpreted as typical of the Conservatives' desire to wreck the national health service.

Mr. Waldegrave: What the hon. Lady says will be disproved by events. I advise her not to put herself out on a limb. The hospitals will be better run and they will be available to NHS patients as they have always been. The hon. Lady will have a lot of words to eat.

Mr. Paul Channon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, far from what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) claims, there will be a widespread welcome—certainly in my constituency—for the formation of self-governing trusts and that many people in my constituency realise that the arrangements are likely to lead to a better service? How will the system work for the approval of capital development schemes in the future? I am sure that it will work to the benefit of Southend.

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that there will be very successful developments at the hospitals in Southend when they are part of a trust. The capital allocations will come forward in due course. The new trusts will have a new system of external financing limits and those will be announced in due course.

Mr. Jim Cousins: The Freeman hospital had its application for self-governing trust status approved today. Can the Secretary of State assure us that its ambitions to create a monopoly on certain key regional services and to acquire certain key services from neighbouring hospitals will not be agreed until he and the regional health authority have intervened to judge whether that is in the wider interests of the people of Newcastle and the rest of the northern region?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure that people understand that the district retains its duty to ensure proper coverage of all the health aspects. If proper coverage is not given, it is for the district to ensure that one of the providers in its area provides it. The region also remains involved. The hon. Gentleman need not heed the scare stories that people have been putting about.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's continuous use of the words "opt out" is nothing more than the cynical manipulation of the fears of the elderly and frail? The national health service hospitals will not be opting out of the health service; they will be delivering better quality and more efficient patient care. In view of that fact, is my right hon. Friend at all surprised that the Opposition want to abolish trust status hospitals?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The nearest thing that the Opposition have to a policy—it has been leaked extensively over the past few days—is simply to abolish everything. They are going as far as they can. They have the idea that we must have what they call competition—I do not think that it is competition—but their model is completely chaotic and I think that when it is published it will be a laughing stock.

Mr. Paul Boateng: In assessing the financial viability of the application by Central Middlesex hospital, which is opposed by staff and patients alike, has the Secretary of State considered whether the Central Middlesex hospital trust will be able to retain 100 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of land that is currently occupied by that hospital?

Mr. Waldegrave: It will be able to retain the proceeds from land vested in the trust.

Sir Giles Shaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on deciding to adopt the proposals for Leeds St. James's and Leeds general infirmary. I welcome the fact that the two district health authorities in Leeds are to be merged into one under the chairmanship of my constituent, Mrs. Pamela Smith. What will be the situation in regard to the massive capital project for Leeds general infirmary, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, is essential for that hospital to discharge its present duties?

Mr. Waldegrave: The allocation of capital, which I shall have to make in due course and which the regions in turn will make, will, in the first years, ensure those capital investments that a trust could have expected from a region. I hope that capital investments will be able to develop a little further. They will be subject to capital controls, as in all other hospitals.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State clearly said that details of the proposed trusts and the various applications will be made available in the Vote Office and in the House of Commons Library. Will similar information be available about proposed trusts in Scotland, or will the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland also be dragged screaming and kicking to the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady may have missed the fact that I was not screaming or kicking. I am delighted that certain Opposition Members are getting themselves out on a branch, which will fall off and that we have yet another opportunity to publicise our policy, which is getting wider and wider support in the country and will deliver the goods. I am the Secretary of State for Health in England and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who has responsibility for health in Scotland, will doubtless make his own statement in his own time.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome the commitment that he and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have given to the future of the National Health Service particularly because I, or rather my wife, as an NHS patient, had a son born in Musgrove Park hospital, Taunton, two months ago? Is my right hon. Friend aware also that, for that trust to achieve its full potential, more informing and persuading needs to be done before next April? In particular, is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance that we in Taunton attach to the beginning of the second phase of the development of Musgrove Park hospital as soon as possible?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend. Hon. Members will also join him in congratulating Musgrove Park hospital on the much more secure future that it will have. The announcement of the trusts will not end arguments about capital allocations in future. There will never be unlimited capital, but we shall try to allocate the capital that we have in a way that supports the kind of development to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Bruce George: I very much regret that the hospital in my constituency is added to the list. In the interests of fairness, will the Minister of State instruct the chairmen of the regional health authorities to publish the fullest possible results of the consultative process? Will the Secretary of State himself publish in the fullest possible detail his reasons for deciding that the hospitals will opt out? In the interests of fairness and in the interests of determining whether hon. Members' views are right, that information should be fully disclosed.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is up to the regions to disclose or not to disclose what they wish. The hon. Gentleman made a gesture that meant "opting out". That at least is progress compared with his hon. Friends. He understands that hospitals are not opting out of the national health service. The sooner that message gets across—a fair-minded man such as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless help us to get it across—the fewer unnecessary scare stories we shall have from the Opposition.

Sir Anthony Grant: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), when considering future applications direct from hospitals, will my right hon. Friend ensure that excessive weight is not given to the views of the regional health authorities, which are often excessively bureaucratic and which are not necessarily always in touch with local opinion? My right hon. Friend will realise that I have a particular and very famous hospital in mind.

Mr. Waldegrave: We are steadily streamlining and improving the standard of regional management. There is general consent now in the national health service that the standard of management is steadily improving, and it needs to. I note what my hon. Friend says, but I must advise him that I pay considerable attention to the advice of regional chairmen and their regional general managers.

Mr. Eddie Leyden: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread opposition to the opt-out measures being initiated by the regional health authorities? Does he realise that this will be a black day for the national health service, in view of his


answers today? The national health service does not belong to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Government; it belongs to the people. This is probably the most regressive step that has been taken this century in social policy. The right hon. Gentleman has left no doubt in my mind that his intention is to dismantle the national health service.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware that there is widespread opposition to the policy of nonsense that the hon. Gentleman has just described. Luckily, nobody in this country has such a policy, which is why his anxieties can be laid to rest at once. The national health service belongs to all the people of this country, and the management of it should be in the hands of those who have most commitment to it, which is not the hon. Gentleman or me—it is those who work in the hospitals.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question. We have already exceeded the time that I should normally allow, but as this is a very important matter, I shall therefore call three more hon. Members from each side, but then we must move on. I shall certainly bear in mind those hon. Members who are not called today on future occasions—and I am sure that there will be future occasions on this important matter.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Why has my right hon. Friend decided not to establish Harefield hospital as an NHS trust, in view of the support of the medical staff and its pre-eminance as one of the hospitals engaged in heart transplant surgery?

Mr. Waldegrave: It was, indeed, a difficult decision because, in many ways, Harefield is an ideal hospital for trust status. I was also aware of the strong support in that hospital, and in very many others, for trust status. However, I had regrettably to conclude that it had not completed its plans in such a way that I could, with confidence, agree them. I very much hope that it will be ready for trust status next year.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State realise that this sad statement shows that we have a new salesman, but the same policy? In that context, does he agree that the succour of the sick within the principles of the national health service means that commercial criteria have no place? Because of the drop in land sales and the decrease in the value of land, £40 million has been cut from the money available for Newham general hospitals' much needed extension. Since we cannot trust the Government even to provide facilities that are wholly within what the right hon. Gentleman calls the health service, does not that show that we cannot trust the trusts either?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman was making. It is true that the price of land has fallen this year so, sadly, less money is available to the national health service from land sales. That is true, and we have taken account of that in our expenditure plans and in the public expenditure survey settlement for next year. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that what drives the health service is not commercial criteria at all, but that does not mean that we cannot learn useful things from the organisation of other businesses, including those in the private sector.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wise in this matter to be aware of a possible distinction between the interests of producer groups, including the unions, on the one hand, and the interests of consumers and patients on the other? Does he agree that this afternoon's proceedings make it clear that even the possibility of making that distinction has passed the Labour party by entirely?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is true; no real arguments have been made, except against a policy that does not exist—taking hospitals away from the national health service. We have established that both sides of the House would be against that, but luckily that is not our policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) made the far more interesting point that it will be far easier for people to do proper jobs in the national health service when the distinction is made between those responsible for providing services and those responsible for ensuring that those services are provided, which is a real distinction.

Mr. John Garrett: What benefits does the Minister expect from the Norfolk ambulance trust when its weighty application document gave no undertakings about future quality of service?

Mr. Waldegrave: That application, like others, argued that local, devolved management would provide a better service to patients, which I believe it will do.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of the announcement is that decisions can be taken locally wherever possible? Is not the Labour party's fear that we might clip the wings of groups with vested interests, particularly the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, in which case we can, for once, agree?

Mr. Waldegrave: One of the proposals which the Labour party has at the heart of its commitment to the future and which would be catastrophic for the national health service, as for the rest of national life, is to unleash secondary picketing again, which would take us back to the winter of 1978–79.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Does the Minister accept that the correct term is "opting out", because if the hospitals go bankrupt, they will opt back into the national health service. I have that on authority from the Severn-Trent authority. I totally condemned the proposals for Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu hospital because the Government have not consulted the consumers. To my knowledge, no doctors agree with the proposal. If they send their patients to other infirmaries and hospitals still under the national health service, will the necessary finance be provided?

Mr. Waldegrave: There is widespread medical support for the changes. I have to judge in each case whether there is proper clinical involvement in the proposals, and I have so discovered. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) knows that, at the heart of our policy is the principle—which I believe is accepted by the hon. Member for Livingston—that the money should follow the patients.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)

Mr. Speaker: We come to the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland——

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the points of order after the statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Mr. Speaker——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know perfectly well that they must sit down. I shall take the points of order after the statement.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that I shall take the points of order at the usual time. I must ask the hon. Members to resume their seats—[Interruption.] I must order hon. Members to resume their seats.

Mr. Lang: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about public expenditure in Scotland.
Following the announcement on 8 November of the Government's public expenditure plans by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I have now decided how I propose to deploy the resources which are available for my programmes in Scotland. As usual, a table summarising my decisions is available in the Vote Office and will appear in Hansard. Full details will appear in due course in my departmental report, which will be published in February.
My right hon. Friend said in his autumn statement that the Government had been obliged to take some tough decisions in this survey in the interests of the economy. The task of allocating the resources available to me under the formula arrangements has not been an easy one. However, the total sum at my disposal in 1991–92 is just over £11 billion, whereas the latest estimate of outturn for the current year in the programmes is just over £9·7 billion and the planned provision at this time last year was £9·6 billion. After allowing for transfers, notably in respect of my new responsibilities for training and for nature conservation in Scotland, planned expenditure on my programmes will exceed this year's forecast outturn by over £1 billion, or 11 per cent.
My right hon. and learned Friend, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, has already, of course, announced a very fair settlement for Scottish local authorities. This settlement should, particularly in the light of the expected fall in inflation, remove the need for any significant real increase in community charge levels next year. I believe it was right to give priority in this survey to offsetting the effects on community charge payers of high spending by Scottish local authorities, but that has inevitably meant that the increases that I can afford for my other programmes are lower than I would have wished.
Expenditure on the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Training Agency in Scotland will be rolled forward as planned to launch Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise on 1 April 1991. Together they will have

available gross expenditure of £477 million. Of this, Scottish Enterprise will be able to spend £406 million, of which £226 million will be training resources transferred from the employment programme. Highlands and Islands Enterprise will have £71 million, of which just over £13 million is for training and related expenditure. This provision will maintain the high level of activity which the new bodies inherit from the SDA and HIDB, including last year's additional resources for Caithness.
I have given priority to the health programme, which next year will amount in gross terms to more than £3·3 billion. This is 11 per cent. more than original plans for the current year, and 9·3 per cent. more than forecast outturn. This increase is greater than the formula consequences from the comparable programme in England, and will enable continued progress to be made with the major reforms which are under way in the management of the service, while maintaining patient care. These additions to the programme are particularly significant given that expenditure per head on health is already over 20 per cent. above comparable expenditure in England. Overall, planned expenditure on the NHS in Scotland in 1991–92 will be 38 per cent. higher after allowing for inflation than in 1979–80.
I attach importance to the environment and I am pleased to announce a further substantial increase in resources for local authorities' water and sewerage programme. This will enable me to enhance the programme by 17 per cent. next year to £166 million and to £238 million in three years' time. Planned expenditure then will be two thirds higher than it was this year, and more than double the level for 1988–89. I am sure that this major increase will be widely welcomed by everyone who cares for the environment. Local authorities will be able to make continuing improvements in the quality of drinking water and bathing waters to meet United Kingdom and EC standards and the new £130 million sewerage improvement grant which my right hon. and learned Friend announced in June will be of considerable further assistance. My plans for the environment also provide for the establishment of NCC Scotland with effect from next April and for increases in the budgets of the Countryside Commission for Scotland and United Kingdom 2000.
In the education programme my plans provide for rising numbers of Scottish students at universities and colleges, for extra resources for school buildings and for the completion of the Scottish centre for children with motor impairments. In housing, Scottish Homes' funding will increase next year by 10 per cent. and local authorities should be able to maintain gross capital expenditure per house on their own stock at this year's levels, and increase their contributions to the partnership areas. Local authority improvement grant provision will be maintained.
In transport, we plan to maintain the excellent progress made so far on upgrading the A74 to motorway standard, and to start the final schemes to complete both the A9 Perth to Stirling and the A94 Perth to Aberdeen dualling. We will continue work on the central Scotland motorway network and on the A96 Aberdeen to Inverness route.
There has been a steady improvement in infrastructure and public services in Scotland over the past decade. It is this Government's effective management of the economy and prudent approach to public finance which have made these improvements possible, and the decisions that I have announced today will ensure that they will continue.

Following is the table:












£ million



1990–91 Estimated outturn gross
net
1990–91 Planned Provision gross
net
1991–92 Planned Provision gross
net
1992–93 Planned Provision gross
net
1993–94 Planned Provision gross
net


Central government's own expenditure (including public corporations other than nationalised industries) and local authority capital expenditure












Agriculture, fisheries and food
237
228
237
232
253
246
260
260
270
270


Industry, energy, trade and employment
349
252
348
251
601
528
610
530
610
520


Tourism
12
12
13
13
14
14
10
10
10
10


Roads and transport
387
384
387
384
378
375
390
390
400
400


Housing (see Note 5)
1,066
660
1,024
639
1,154
711
970
700
980
730


Other environmental services
369
278
334
271
415
344
430
360
460
390


Law, order and protective services
323
308
317
298
346
330
360
340
380
360


Education
451
450
440
439
543
538
580
580
600
600


Arts and libraries
35
35
35
35
41
41
50
50
60
60


Health
3,087
2,990
3,041
2,936
3,375
3,275
3,550
3,450
3,680
3,570


Social work services
39
39
38
38
51
51
50
50
60
60


Other public services
170
139
170
139
201
163
210
170
230
180


Total central government and local authority capital
6,525
5,774
6,385
5,676
7,372
6,615
7,480
6,900
7,730
7,150


Central government support to local authorities' current expenditure

4,020

4,019

4,389

4,510

4,620


Nationalised industries financing limits

−84

−119

48

50

10


Total expenditure within the Secretary of States responsibility

9,711

9,576

11,052

11,460

11,780

Notes:

1. 1990–91 and 1991–92 rounded to nearest £1 million. 1992–93 and 1993–94 rounded to nearest £10 million.

2. Figures may not add due to rounding.

3. Central government support to local authorities comprises revenue support grant, grants to local authorities for specific purposes, and income from non domestic rates.

4. The estimated outturn for 1990–91 is lower than that shown in the autumn statement as it takes account of changes to the nationalised industries' financing requirements since the autumn statement was compiled.

5. The housing gross figure for 1990–91 includes £10 million and the gross and net figures for 1991–92 include £170 million and £38 million respectively for Scottish Homes' loan repayments to the national loans fund.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion. I gather from the public prints that it came as a surprise to him, but it shows the wonderful things that can happen when someone backs a winner. I particularly welcome his pledge to dialogue and accord in Scotland. If that is realised, it will make a notable change from the past 11 rather abrasive years.
The total announced in the autumn statement which has now been divided up is clearly inadequate. The problems of the Scottish Office which have been widely advertised in the press in the past week or two make that clear.
How can the Secretary of State defend a settlement that means a cut of £200 million in real terms between 1991–92 and 1993–94? If, as the Secretary of State claims, the settlement removes the need for any significant real increase in community charge levels, why are authorities such as the Borders, Dumfries and Grampian looking to poll tax increases of about £50 in the coming year? Does he not agree that local authorities needed an 11 per cent. increase in grant to stand still, are facing substantial new

statutory duties in areas such as community care and face problems that arise from the changes in the Government's contribution to the cost of rebates?
I note that gross expenditure of £477 million is being made available to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand that that makes it difficult to compare this year's and next year's employment budgets. Will he confirm that the new presentation conceals grim news? Does he agree that on the SDA's traditional role the increase in expenditure for next year is up by only 3·3 per cent. which represents a substantial cut in real terms?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman worried about the fact that, in 1986–87, the Welsh Development Agency budget was 55 per cent. of the SDA budget? In 1991–92, the WDA budget will be 88 per cent. of the SDA budget, and that is for a country half the size of Scotland. Can he confirm that, in 1991–92, nearly £60 million will be slashed from training expenditure in Scotland? Is that the launch pad for the training revolution which we need and which occasionally the Government promise us under the new structure?
Does the Secretary of State agree that, although he has announced a cut in gross expenditure on housing of £50 million in real terms between 1991–92 and 1992–93—in cash terms, a loss of £14 million? Those are the figures after allowing for the £170 million that will be repaid in 1991–92 by Scottish Homes to the national loans fund. Is he satisfied that that will allow the housing stock to be satisfactorily maintained? His statement contains a form of words which suggests that he has nothing like the confidence that he should have on that matter:
local authorities should be able to maintain gross capital expenditure per house on their own stock at this year's levels".
Is it correct to translate that as a significant cut, because the number of houses will fall and no allowance has been made for inflation?
The Minister will admit that no one listening to him would guess that a cut in the roads and transport budget next year of £9 million in cash means £29 million in real terms? That will make sore reading and will bring little consolation to those who are waiting for good news about roads that never comes. I accept that the statement is not that of the right hon. Gentleman but that he has inherited it from his predecessor. He is predicting trouble, difficulty and turmoil in supporting in future years services for the most vulnerable in our society. It would be helpful if he would at least give a commitment to do better next year and halt the decline in funding, which is clearly outlined in the figures, in the run-up to 1993–94.

Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box on my first appearance as Secretary of State for Scotland. After that, the hon. Gentleman fell back into the usual well-worn complaint about inadequate resources. This year there is an increase of 11 per cent. on last year's anticipated outturn. By any standard that is a substantial increase, especially when we anticipate that by the time this public expenditure period begins inflation will be falling.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a £50 increase in the community charge. Such increases are completely unnecessary. We have made a generous increase of 10·4 per cent. in local government funding. To talk about substantial increases in the community charge and to blame them on non-payment and non-collection is totally unacceptable. The evidence shows that local authorities are collecting about 90 per cent. of budgeted income, and that will bring them close to 98 per cent. of total anticipated revenue from all sources. If they cannot meet the gap from adjusting their budgets rather than turning to those who do pay to cover the default of those who do not, there is something badly wrong in local government management.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the budgets for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I refute his suggestion that the news about them is grim. There has been a substantial provision of resources to enable these bodies to plan for the development of activities in their area. The hon. Gentleman is fond of talking about the net budget for these organisations. The net budget on the forecast outturn for 1990–91 for the Scottish Development Agency is £97 million, and the net budget for 1991–92 for Scottish Enterprise is around £120 million. That is not taking into account the addition of training provision.
We have made substantial provision for training—some £226 million for Scottish Enterprise and £13·3 million in the case of Highlands and Islands Enterprise—at a time when the demographic trend is reducing the number of school leavers by 6·5 per cent. over the year and when long-term unemployment has been falling substantially. It has fallen faster in Scotland over the past six months than in any other region in the United Kingdom. The training provision includes substantial resources for the needs of the training courses that will be available.
As to housing, net provision will be up £34 million. In the case of Scottish Homes, grant in aid will be up by 10 per cent. the growth provision of local authorities will be maintained at the same level as last year.
The roads programme next year will be slightly less, but over the past two years there was an increase of no less than 40 per cent. The figure of 40 per cent. in the context of the roads programme may be familiar to the hon. Gentleman, because that is the proportion by which the last Labour Government cut the roads programme. We have substantially increased it, and over the next year there will be much work going on in roads and motorways all over Scotland. That is as it should be, and this settlement has the right mixture of divisions between the programmes for Scotland's needs.

Sir Hector Monro: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend and neighbour on his promotion to Secretary of State. I am glad that he has announced significantly increased expenditure on health and education. Is he able to meet the Nature Conservancy Council's target for Scotland of £18 million, which is estimated to be the minimum needed to set up its new Scottish identity? How much money does he hope to set aside within Scottish Enterprise to help in Lanarkshire, where British Steel is so shamefully closing Ravenscraig and the Clydesdale plant, where there will be significant unemployment and where we should be helping with resources?

Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome, which I appreciate, and for his support for the parts of my statement affecting the health and education programmes. There will be an increase in the health programme of 11 per cent. over our plans for last year, which I think hon. Members will welcome. There will also be a substantial increase in education, where net provision will go up by £89 million, or over 20 per cent. above our plans for 1990–91.
We have made provision to increase resources to the NCC by more than £1 million over the three-year expenditure period.
I am keen to ensure that all necessary resources are brought to bear to help in the economic regeneration of Lanarkshire. I hope that all bodies, public and private, will bring resources to bear and that they will use the capacity of their different schemes to regenerate the economy of that region.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I extend my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his elevation, which was caused by the transfer of his colleague to the role of Secretary of State for Transport. Given that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first announcement as Secretary of State for Transport was about increased investment in the M25, which is in the home counties, will the Secretary of State press on the Secretary of State for Transport the


need to ensure that we get a fair share of transport policy, not least the electrification of the railway line north-east to Aberdeen and the extension of the A1 motorway north of the border? Although the opening of the Inverurie bypass last Friday was a welcome move, will the right hon. Gentleman continue funding for the A96?
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the shortfall in local Government spending is partly due to the high cost of collecting the poll tax? In the extensive review of the poll tax that the right hon. Gentleman claims will take place, will he recognise that with a system of local income tax there would not have been a non-payment problem because the Inland Revenue would have ensured that the tax was paid? Will he give an assurance that, when the poll tax is abolished, it will apply to Scotland a year ahead of England and Wales? In addition—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to ask three questions.

Mr. Bruce: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Front Bench——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not a Front-Bench spokesman, even though he may represent his party. He should have some consideration for his colleagues.

Mr. Lang: The north-east of Scotland and the north of Scotland in general have been and continue to be substantial beneficiaries of the roads programme. The Inverness to Thurso road has nine schemes outstanding, valued at £59 million. There are eight major schemes for the A96, and it has top trunk road priority. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Inverurie bypass. I can inform him that since 1979 £109 million has been spent on the Perth to Aberdeen road, and the last dualling stage of that road is about to start.
The cost of collecting the community charge is higher than the cost of collecting domestic rates because twice as many people pay the community charge. We would also expect a new system to be more expensive to collect at the outset. However, the collection costs represent only a small percentage of the total resources at the disposal of local authorities. In return for that, we have a system that is fairer than domestic rates because the burden is spread more evenly across the whole of the adult population. We will be debating these matters further, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to develop his points.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in congratulating my right hon. Friend and wish him every success in his new responsibilities. I welcome his announcement of a 17 per cent. increase in the water and sewerage budget, which should be of enormous help to the environment in Scotland. Will he press on regional councils the absolute priority of preventing the discharge of raw sewage into the sea, which is one of the worst examples of damage to the environment? There are examples of that in my constituency at Newtonhill and at Inverberrie, on the east coast. Will he please make that a major priority?

Mr. Lang: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome. I understand his concern about the discharge of raw sewage. We regard expenditure on this matter to be

extremely important, and that is reflected in my announcement today. My right hon. Friend might like to know that we are talking about an increase in provision not just for next year but for later years. By 1993–94, the water and sewerage budget will have more than doubled.

Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth): Will the Secretary of State accept congratulations on his appointment from a member of the class of '79? I agree with the observation that some, at least, of that class are doing well. In the context of expenditure on the health service, will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider the needs of general practice in the new town of Cumbernauld? In particular, will he carefully consider the need for a new central health clinic? The present health clinic has woefully inadequate facilities and is much overused, and the difficulties faced by doctors are very real. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman about that matter, but will he today give an assurance that he will carefully consider the need for a new central health clinic in Cumbernauld?

Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his greeting, which is warmly appreciated. I listened with interest to his points about the health concerns in his area, and I shall ensure that those matters are drawn to the attention of the health board. We are increasing the gross provision for health by 9·3 per cent., and a health budget of £3·3 billion reflects a substantial rise—no less than 38 per cent. up, in real terms, on what it was when the Government came to power. I believe that, within those substantial resources, it should be possible to meet concerns of the sort mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bill Walker: I too congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State, and I congratulate him, along with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on the return to the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), about which Conservative Members are delighted.
I remind my right hon. Friend that the Opposition consider that education and health will be important matters at the next general election and that our record in those areas, particularly now that spending next year on education will be increased by 20 per cent. and on health by 11 per cent., an increase of 38 per cent. over and above inflation since 1978–79, should enable us to answer all the humbug that comes from the Labour party, which was the party of cuts during 1978–79.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. He is right to identify those important areas of expenditure as ones to which we have given considerable attention and not a little priority this year. My hon. Friend might also like to know that we are making further provision for increased expenditure on education in the later years so that, at the end of the three-year period, expenditure will have risen by no less than 33 per cent.

Mr. John McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware of the Shelter report "Some Chance", published earlier this week, which revealed that 10,000 young Scots are homeless and sleeping rough, and which called on the Scottish Office to make the young homeless a national priority? Why did he not mention the young homeless this afternoon and, more importantly, why did he not target specific spending to deal with the problem of


the young homeless in Scotland? Is it not a national disgrace that, at a time of rising homelessness and a housing crisis in Scotland, he should announce a real terms cut in funding for housing in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman will know, in making allocations to local authorities we take account of the anticipated needs of the homeless and it is for local authorities to decide how to spend their resources. I simply do not believe that, out of the resources that we are increasing by £34 million next year, it will not be possible to find the necessary provision to deal with that problem.

Mr. David Marshall: Is the Secretary of State aware that 1,000 Winget houses in the Carntyne area in the Provan and Shettleston constituencies in the east end of Glasgow have suffered for years from serious structural defects? The district council has no funds to do anything about that problem now or for several years to come, and today's statement, particularly in relation to housing, does nothing to alter that one bit. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) in wishing the Secretary of State well in his new position, but what advice does he have for the people trapped in defective houses?

Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. As I have said, the housing resources are being substantially increased. By the end of 1992, £1 billion will have been available to Scottish Homes since its inception. Within the available resources, it should be possible to meet problems of the kind to which he referred.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement today on housing is grossly inadequate? The vast majority of my constituents are suffering great troubles from dampness and other things which need to be taken care of. When he comes to allocate money to the regions, will he take account of the particular and special needs of Grampian region, which has a great deal to remedy and whose part-Labour council is prepared to bring forward its manifesto promises?

Mr. Lang: The needs and priorities asserted by all local authorities are taken into account and assessed in a fair and even-handed way when allocations are considered. Again, I point to our record on housing expenditure. Since we have been in office, a record £9 billion has been invested in housing in Scotland.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. I thought that tonight we might have had some Christmas cheer but, unfortunately, it looks as if the Scrooge regime will continue. My constituency has literally hundreds of young people who are desperate for homes but cannot afford to buy them because they have no jobs. Scottish Homes is not playing its part in providing homes for young people in my area. Tonight, as on many other nights, young people are languishing in the streets, living in cardboard cities throughout Scotland. Some young people will probably die from hyporthermia because they do not have a home and somewhere to sleep. The Secretary of State's pittance will condemn such young people to a life

of abject misery. He ought to hang his head in shame, and should now start to solve the problem of Scotland's homeless.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that we are covering the deficit for hostel provision from housing support grant. As to the provision for housing, I mentioned a figure of £34 million, which is within an overall increase in expenditure in Scotland of 11 per cent. over and above the estimated outturn for the current year—11 per cent. at a time when we anticipate that inflation will be substantially below that and falling when the programmes come into effect. It is a very good settlement.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman and in expressing the hope that the cancelling of our meeting on Friday represented a postponement rather than anything else.
I remind the Secretary of State that the only commitment made in Committee on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, given by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), about dowry funding for people leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals. Given that that principle has already been accepted in England and Wales, is it covered by the statement? If not, when may we expect a similar commitment for community care in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. Our meeting has indeed been postponed, not cancelled, and I look forward to it. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises does not come within the substance of my statement today. As to the social work budget, I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the net provision is to increase by no less than £12 million, or 31 per cent., over last year.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I welcome the Secretary of State to his post, and his expertise in the terpsichorean art. The only problem is that he might be running out of dancing partners on his side of the House. When the Government sort out the poll tax, will the funds that the Secretary of State has cut be replaced? Does he agree that he has announced what is really a standstill financial provision, for there has been no real increase over the year? When will Scottish water be safe to drink, and when will our beaches be safe to bathe from? As to education and training——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two questions are enough.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Secretary of State have any particular——

Mr. Speaker: Order. A debate that must end at 7 o'clock is to follow.

Mr. Douglas: It was different for the Labour Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a Back Bencher. He is like everyone else on the Back Benches.

Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, which I appreciate. Far from cutting local government resources, I have added £67 million to the consequentials that flow from the settlement south of the border. Some of that was at the expense of the Scottish block and of my other programmes. That represents an attempt to lift the


burden on community charge payers. The onus is on local authorities to plan their budgets in a more economical and frugal way, rather than increase the burden without any thought for the costs imposed on those least able o meet them. The figures I gave show also the substantial commitment that we have to water.

Mr. Adam Ingram: The statement made no mention of the growing housing problem in Scotland's new towns. Why has the Secretary of State not proceeded with the proposition from East Kilbride development corporation to build up to 2,000 new public sector houses? Is it because he has started out as he means to go on—as a mere cipher for the Treasury?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know of the excellent progress that has been made in new town housing in the past two years. He may recall that it was I, as the Minister responsible for new towns, who lifted the general moratorium when I first assumed that office. As to the current settlement, there will be enough available to enable new towns to meet half their special needs requirements in housing over the three-year period.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: A few minutes ago, the Secretary of State said that housing resources in Scotland had increased. Would he care to tell us how many local authorities are now entitled to housing support grant, what proportion of Glasgow district council now receives the grant in comparison with the position in 1979, and how much of the capital allocation given to Scottish authorities in the current year had to come from the proceeds of sales of their own properties and how much was the result of genuine permission to borrow?

Mr. Lang: The first point is not directly covered by the statement. As for the second, in our provision for housing, instead of assuming a substantial increase in receipts as has been done in previous years, with subsequent justification—we are assuming a reduction.

Mr. William McKelvey: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion? It is nice to see one's former pair getting on.
Nevertheless, I was disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's performance today. The £9 million cut in road financing coincides with a Scottish Office news release announcing that the Scottish Office is to promote private financing for the building of Scottish roads. I fear that we shall leap from a poll tax society into a toll tax society. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that Strathclyde regional council will receive sufficient funds to bring back on stream the A77 upgrading and the link with the motorway?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome.
As I have explained, there has been an increase of no less than 40 per cent. in the roads programme in the past two years. We are not maintaining that trend this year, but there is still a considerable amount of work under way which still has to be digested.
The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the A77; given his constituency interest, I understand his feelings. It was not the Government's decision, but Strathclyde regional council's, to postpone plans for the

road for over two years. If the council manages to sort out its problems and present its proposals, we shall be able to take another look at the matter.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Have the expenditure plans taken into account the recent governmental changes? We should remember that all three contenders for the Prime Minister's job declared themselves in favour of an immediate review of the poll tax, once hailed as the flagship of the Tory party.
Does the Secretary of State agree with John Mackay, ex-Tory Member of Parliament and ex-chief executive of the Scottish Tory party, who wrote in yesterday's Glasgow Herald that the poll tax had turned out to be the rock on which the Thatcher era had perished? Will he take it from me that, unless the poll tax is abolished completely, it will also turn out to be the rock on which the Major-Lang era perishes?

Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this statement is my statement, and that I made the final decisions—although, of course, much of the work was done during the period in office of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
No direct implications for the community charge arise from the statement, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Thatcher era has not finished—[Interruption.] The Thatcher era moves on under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I am sure that, given that new, reinvigorated momentum, we shall win another period of office, which will be just as long as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

Mr. Harry Ewing: My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) should not be so sensitive about the difference between the progress made by him and that achieved by the Secretary of State, a fellow member of the class of '79. My hon. Friend has one distinct advantage: he will be back here after the next election.
As a result of the measures announced in the statement, will unemployment in Scotland go up or come down?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that we never make forecasts about unemployment. What I can say is that unemployment is now at its lowest since October 1980—a decade ago; that it has fallen for nearly four years, which constitutes the biggest single fall recorded; and that, at 2·28 million, Scotland's work force is now larger than it has ever been before. That is a record of achievement that the last Labour Government were never able to equal.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Secretary of State plan to spend the night of 16 December at his magnificent residence, Bute house in Charlotte square? If so, after he has finished looking at the lovely Adam fireplaces, would he like to go down to St. John's church in the west end and join the hundreds who will be sleeping out in cardboard boxes for the whole night, just as many do every night of the year in Scotland's capital city?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one way of ending that disgrace would be to allocate more funds to housing associations in Edinburgh, which could then build more low-cost housing? Does he accept that those housing associations are fighting a losing battle with private speculators because of escalating land prices in the city?
Does he not realise that, in the midst of everything else in that capital city, there is a great deal of poverty, which will never be addressed unless the Government radically change their attitude towards public housing?

Mr. Lang: I shall have to consult my diary to see what I am doing on 16 December. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about homeless people, with planned gross housing expenditure of over £2·9 billion over the next three years, housing authorities have ample scope—if they also have the will—to pay more attention to the task of tackling the plight of the homeless.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I compliment the Secretary of State on his appointment.
I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman's observations about Scotland's transport system contained no mention of the maritime transport network that is so essential to our island communities. What provision has he made for the replacement of aging Caledonian MacBrayne passenger ferries? When, for example, will the Suilven be replaced? May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are still shipyards on the Clyde that need those orders -especially Fergusons of Port Glasgow?

Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome.
We shall be making an announcement about shipyard provision shortly. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the Government believe that ships should be built because they are needed and will be paid for, not just for the sake of retaining employment in the shipyards. We do not believe in allowing shipyards to build vessels for which there are no immediate orders.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I register my dismay, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), at the public expenditure circumstances that are the root cause of the industrial action taken by those long-serving, hard-working, serious night nurses at St. John's hospital, Livingston—people who would not normally conceive of doing any such thing? Will the Secretary of State—and, indeed, his responsible Minister—meet Dr. Baynham and Lothian health board to try to end the circumstances of the dispute? If he does not, he had better consult the present Secretary of State for Transport and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), because, sooner or later, the action will be spread to the great Edinburgh hospitals.

Mr. Lang: Of course, no one likes industrial disputes of this kind, especially if they take place in hospitals. This is essentially a matter for the health board, but I understand that the board is anxious to make arrangements to protect the nurses' earnings for a year, and to bring shift patterns into line with those in other hospitals.

NEW MEMBERS

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

Mrs. Katherine Adams, for Paisley, North.

Gordon McMaster, Esq, for Paisley, South.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before taking points of order—and of course I must take them—I remind hon. Members that we have yet to come a debate on the budget of the European Communities, which must end at 7 o'clock. If we had not had that constraint on us, I might have allowed the private notice question to run somewhat longer. But I must have regard to the business before the House.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your problem. The Government did not seek to make a statement today on the NHS trusts and you granted a private notice question to the Opposition, my hon. Friends and I thank you for doing so. My point of order is simple. Throughout the country, 55 hospitals have been stolen from the national health service and have been handed over to hospital managements so that they can make a great deal of money. The damage that will be done——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be the case, but it is a matter of argument and not a matter of order for me.

Mr. Corbyn: My point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order, he must raise one that I can answer.

Mr. Corbyn: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is simply to ask when we shall have a proper statement on the subject and when we shall be able to debate the whole issue, so that the opposition to this crazy move can be voiced by the elected representatives in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know, because that is not a point of order either. But I hope that there will be a debate, because it is certainly a major matter.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We were delighted to see two new hon. Members introduced today, but it will not have escaped your notice that their combined electorates are lower than mine and those of many other Conservative Members. Would it be in order for you to arrange that secretarial allowances paid to hon. Members representing well populated constituencies are double those of Scottish Members?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Leader of the House. I suggest that the hon. Member's point would be an admirable one to put to the Leader of the House on Thursday.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Gentleman once.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a helpful point of order, Mr. Speaker. When there is raised in the House an issue such as that raised today, which affects the constituencies of many hon. Members—including mine, which loses two hospitals and, in due course, its community services—it might be somewhat fairer if hon. Members from the various areas affected


were called by you area by area. We on Merseyside seem always to suffer from the Liverpool syndrome. You always call an hon. Member from Liverpool, but there are many more of us on Merseyside than there are from Liverpool.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, and perhaps he will come and have a quiet word with me one day, when he might care to tell me, for example, who today he thinks I might have cut out so that he might have been called instead.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are obviously well aware of the importance of today's private notice question and of the importance of the House as a means by which I, as an hon. Member, can defend my constituents who are genuinely uncertain about whether they will have a national health service hospital to which they can refer their medical needs. I appreciate that you are not in a position to discuss requests from Ministers, but when a matter is sufficiently important that it should be dealt with by way of a statement—which would give you the opportunity to allow questions on the issue to continue for longer—is it possible for you to take that fact into account in the amount of time that you allocate to private notice questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is precisely what I did. A private notice question is normally an extension of Question Time, as the House knows. I would not normally allow such a question to continue for more than 15 to 20 minutes. Today, it continued for nearly 50 minutes, so I did take into account the very point that the hon. Member raises.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a strong feeling that, unwittingly, you may have made a geographical error——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I am human and I am sure that I make many errors. I am very sorry if the hon. Member was not called.

Mr. Litherland: I raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker, not simply on my behalf but because no hon. Members representing north-west constituencies were called, yet three major hospitals in Manchester, including those affecting the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) are to go. Neither my hon. Friend nor I was called, although we wanted to make protestations about there not having been any consultations on the subject. It is clear that a short statement did not do the subject justice.

Mr. Speaker: That is as may be.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can be of assistance. If one examines the list of hospital trusts, one notices that no fewer than 13 of them are in London. It might assist you, Mr. Speaker, if you were cogniscant of the fact that I am the chair of the London group and that my colleagues are happy for me to speak on behalf of London, should I be called.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether all the hon. Member's colleagues would absolutely agree about that. They have never seemed to agree in the past. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is now a Front-Bench spokesman. It is difficult being a Front-Bench spokesman and the chair of the London group as well.

Mr. Banks: Not really, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman wears two hats.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I apologise for raising another point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I do not apologise for raising it, albeit in the absence of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who raised a point of order and then left. I should be grateful if you would say that you seriously deprecate hon. Members in any part of the House referring to new hon. Members in the disparaging terms that the hon. Member for Stockton, South used. For such comments to be made about two new colleagues who have just taken their seats is an undesirable practice, which should be deprecated.

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said was not out of order. The House itself has a way of dealing with matters of that kind.

Mr. Keith Bradley: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), Mr. Speaker. May I inform you that the only hospitals in the whole of the north-west region that are opting out are in Manchester—in central Manchester and, in my constituency, the Christie hospital? May I suggest that in any future debate on this issue you recognise hon. Members who were not called this afternoon, and in particular that you recognise the essential nature of Christie hospital, not only as a local hospital but as a centre of national excellence for cancer care? I hope that you will bear that in mind in any future debate on opting out.

Mr. Speaker: I undertake to do that. I must remind the House that it is extremely difficult for the Chair, because I received the answer to the private notice question at the same time as the Minister rose to his feet to give it. It contained a long list of hospitals. It is an impossible task to expect the Chair to look down such a list and also to look out for hon. Members. I do my best, but I am sorry that I was not able to call the hon. Member and some of his hon. Friends.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the question of calling hon. Members when statements are made? I have no complaint, because I do reasonably well——

Mr. Corbyn: Very well.

Dr. Godman: I accept my hon. Friend's correction; I do very well. I thought that there was a rule to the effect that Front Benchers who hop on to the Back Benches to ask questions are kept to the end of the queue, where they should be, and that genuine Back Benchers are called first.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the Opposition Front Bench some time ago. I think that the time an hon. Member is called does not really matter, so long as he or she is able to ask his or her question.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that is concerning me. Numerous Opposition Members have stood up in prime television time and said that the hospitals on the list, one of which is on the fringes of my


constituency, are leaving the NHS. They know that that is not true. It causes the public who are watching much anxiety.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. What is the point of order? I called the hon. Gentleman, did I not?

Mr. Hind: No, you did not. The public and the House are being misled about something that is blatantly not true. Therefore——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the moment to pursue that point. These are matters of major argument and debate. The House should have a debate at some stage, I hope fairly soon. The Leader of the House will have heard what has been said, and I hope that we may have good news about it on Thursday.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Not again.

Mr. Corbyn: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: That is very selfish of the hon. Gentleman. He has been called once on a point of order. He must have consideration for others who wish to participate in the debate on the European Communities budget. Is it a point of order? The last one was not.

Mr. Corbyn: Yes. I want to clarify what you said in your answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about Front-Bench spokesmen who seek to raise points on a statement or a private notice question. Do they get priority over Back Benchers or not?

Mr. Speaker: I take into consideration many things, such as the range of Back Benchers' opportunities. The hon. Gentleman is not in any sense a deprived citizen.

Mr. Corbyn: I am not on the Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: No, but the hon. Gentleman is regularly called, not once a day but often several times a day. He must have consideration for Front-Bench colleagues, who do not always get as many opportunities as he gets.

European Communities (Budget)

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. COM(90) 121, relating to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1991, 8182/90, relating to the Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1991, and 9865/90 and the supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 30th November 1990, relating to the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the draft Budget.
I know that the House has been waiting with bated breath for the debate to begin. This is my first opportunity to address the House on this important issue. It is an annual event that is of considerable importance for the House.
This year's budget procedure has been preceded and accompanied by developments of great moment in the world. We have seen historic change in eastern Europe, with political and economic reforms that the Community has rightly been quick to support. Germany has united—a welcome development that enlarges our Community. The United Nations sanctions against Iraq have had a disproportionate effect on three countries in particular—Turkey, Jordan and Egypt. The European Community has, properly, decided to provide special assistance to them. All those developments require changes to the Community's financial perspective.
In the past two years, European Community spending has generally been well contained. The figures for commitments in both the 1989 and 1990 budgets have been consistently below the ceilings in the financial perspective, at 2 becu and 4·5 becu respectively. The United Kingdom's net contribution was more than £2 billion in both those years. It would have been substantially higher but for the abatement provided by the Fontainebleau agreement.
The general level of spending under the European Community budget is likely to rise quite strongly in 1991, partly because of the exceptional factors to which I referred at the outset. There is, in addition, pressure on the agriculture budget, reflecting falling world prices—especially for grain—depressed market conditions for livestock and a range of other factors, including the loss of export markets because of the Gulf crisis.
The financial guideline for agriculture was largely a product of Britain's determination to prevent a recurrence of the runaway growth in spending that brought the Community to the edge of bankruptcy in 1987. The guideline sets a legally binding limit on agriculture support spending. The annual growth of the limit is confined to 74 per cent. of the rate of growth of Community gross national product taken from the 1988 base. That guideline is buttressed by automatic stabilisers for most commodities, which trigger price cuts when production exceeds maximum quantitites set by the Council.
Until this year, the system seemed to be achieving its objective of restraining expenditure. Cumulative expenditure in 1988, 1989 and 1990 was 11 becu below the guideline, but recent developments in the trend of agricultural spending suggest that next year the guideline may be under greater pressure. I fully understand the

z
concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), as expressed in the amendment that he has tabled, about that upward pressure. It will remain essential to resist it.
The House will recall that the inter-institutional agreement is a political agreement under which the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission have bound themselves to respect ceilings for each of the six main categories of Community spending for the five years between 1988 and 1992. Those ceilings are set out in the financial perspective. They need to be revised to accommodate expenditure which could not reasonably have been foreseen when the financial perspective was agreed.
The agreement distinguishes, within non-compulsory expenditure, between privileged and non-privileged spending. Privileged spending includes the structural funds, the research and development framework programme and the integrated Mediterranean programmes. This category will double in real terms in that five-year period, but for the non-privileged element, the Council has agreed to respect the maximum rate of increase calculated by the Commission within the framework of article 203 of the treaty. The calculated maximum rate for the 1991 budget is 7·2 per cent.
In June 1984, the European Council in Fontainebleau agreed a permanent mechanism to abate the United Kingdom's grossly disproportionate net contribution to the budget. By the end of next year, cumulative abatement under the mechanism will have totalled almost £10 billion, in addition to the £3·2 billion-worth of refunds extracted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) before the Fontainebleau mechanism took effect. On that score alone, Britain is £13 billion better off today than it would have been under the sloppy arrangements that were so skilfully negotiated by the last Labour Government. Those arrangements amounted to a scandalous betrayal of British interests.
In June, the financial perspective was revised to provide for assistance to eastern Europe and to Mediterranean, Asian and latin American countries. A small amount for structural funds and administration was also included. The effect was an increase in the financial perspective by 200 mecu for 1990, 1·2 mecu for 1991 and nearly 1·5 mecu for 1992.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister have the sterling equivalents of those ecu figures, which might assist those who are trying to follow the debate?

Mr. Maude: No, I have not, but I can lend the hon. Gentleman a pocket calculator, which will enable him to do the sums with great rapidity.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: That is silly.

Mr. Banks: It was a genuine question.

Mr. Maude: I accept that it was a genuine question. I do not have the figures in exact equivalents, but they can easily be provided. If the House prefers to have them in that form, they can be provided. The difficulty arises because the accounts for the European Community are, properly, calculated in ecu. It is not difficult for sterling equivalents to be provided.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Are not we being a little panicky? Figures for international transactions are frequently given in dollars, and usually there are no protests from hon. Members. Taking the whole picture into account, does my hon. Friend agree that budget control is eminently satisfactory, not least due to pressure from the United Kingdom Government in recent years, compared with the previous position that he mentioned? That particularly applies to agriculture, which needs careful monitoring and depends much on the negotiations on the export refunds.
Does my hon. Friend further agree that the eastern European expenditure is being dealt with satisfactorily, that most German reunification expenditure is dealt with by German national expenditure and that the outlook remains one of further control and of remaining under the financial perspective?

Mr. Maude: It is right to say that the arrangements negotiated in 1988 have, until now, exercised a firm discipline on Community spending. It will remain of the utmost importance to continue that discipline. The present discussions on next year's budget illustrate how important it is to maintain that discipline. Although, for a number of reasons, agricultural spending has been well below the ceiling in the financial perspective, there is upward pressure for the future, and it will be very important to resist that.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend will be aware that discussions on the general agreement on tariffs and trade are going on at present. They should have at least the effect of restraining further increases. If, as I hope, a good agreement is reached, there may be a prospect of some reductions, which would be as welcome to me as to my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Butcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that the common agricultural policy budget is a massive aberration at the heart of Community finances? As we speak, the CAP threatens to undermine the general agreement on tariffs and trade and to impoverish not only the people of Europe, but those who wish to sell cheap agricultural products to this country. It is utterly foolish for us to vote for increases in aid from the European budgetary programme to the nations that are not allowed to trade with us in agricultural products. Does my hon. Friend further agree that his negotiations on this question on our behalf are really about whether the tradition of Adam Smith or the tradition of Colbert and of Richelieu will dominate European debates in future?

Mr. Maude: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is certainly right that we need to be careful to ensure that policies on agriculture enable developing countries—for these purposes, I include the reforming countries of eastern and of central Europe—to sell to us the goods that they are capable of producing. It is absurd for us to provide funds for such countries to firm up their economic reforms and, at the same time, to deny them markets where those products can properly compete.
For some time, I have argued that the GATT negotiations this year are, by quite a margin, the most important set of international discussions. Not only the future prosperity of the world but its future security depends on those discussions. I hope that those who are


conducting the negotiations in Brussels at present will have in mind the terrible price that could be paid if a satisfactory outcome is not reached. There is a huge prize to be won if the discussions are successful, and a terrible cost if they fail.

Mr. Dykes: I am sure that all of us agree unequivocally with my hon. Friend's view, and we all believe that the Community negotiators have a special responsibility in that context. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat ironic that the United States negotiators usually fail to remind us that the bulk of the internal support system in the United States—deficiency payments, which we used to have, but no longer have—amounts to about 82 per cent. of the total United States dollar support for American farmers.

Mr. Maude: It is certainly the case that none of the protagonists in the discussion is quite as pure as he makes himself out to be. All the protagonists have a negotiating position and, at present, those positions are incompatible. A negotiating position is, of course, one on which one can negotiate. If the negotiators fail to reach a satisfactory outcome, they will have a heavy burden of guilt to carry.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the Minister believe that the Government should now be applying themselves to getting rid of the green pound? Would not that be a considerable help in this matter?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman takes me beyond the scope of this debate. The green pound needs to be considered in the light of our entry into the exchange rate mechanism and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that matter.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend can clarify a point about the GATT talks. Do my hon. Friend and the Government consider that the alleged 30 per cent. reduction in farm support is really a reduction? The Commission's proposals make it abundantly clear that farmers will be compensated fully for any reduction in subsidy, and that there is no question of freedom of trade being permitted. It would be helpful for us to know whether the Government consider that the alleged 30 per cent. reduction in agricultural support will be a real reduction, as the words in the proposal seem to show that there will be no reduction, but simply a reduction in subsidy, which will be compensated for by other subsidies.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is not a question of a clean and straightforward reduction, as has been suggested. Equally, he will be aware that a substantial part of the 30 per cent. has already been harvested—if that is the right word in the circumstances—reflecting the changes in the common agricultural policy since 1986.
I can now provide for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) the sterling equivalents for the figures that I gave earlier on the first revision to the financial perspectives in respect of eastern Europe. The figure for 1990 was £140 million, for 1991 it is £950 million, and for 1992 it is £1,035 million, at a conversion rate of £1 to 1·435 ecu, which is the central exchange rate mechanism rate.
In September 1990, the Commission proposed a further revision to take account of assistance to the front-line

states in the Gulf conflict: Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. It was proposed to raise the ceiling for category 4 and for the total ceiling of the financial perspective by 630 million ecu.
In October, a further revision was proposed to take account of the effect on the budget of the unification of Germany. The total ceiling for that purpose was to be raised by 1 billion ecu in 1991 and by just over I billion ecu in 1992. In return, the Council sought savings within current spending to offset those increases in part. In addition, a fourth revision has recently been proposed by the Commission to take account of agricultural rebates to Spain and to Portugal.
I want now to outline this year's budget procedure so far. The Commission presented the preliminary draft budget in July. For 1991, the preliminary draft budget was about 13 per cent. bigger than the adopted budget for 1990. I know that that will rightly concern the House. None the less, that budget was almost 4 billion ecu below the overall ceiling in the financial perspective. Total provision was equivalent to about 1 per cent. of Community gross national product, compared with the 1·19 per cent. ceiling allowed under the own resources decision of June 1988.
Two underlying trends in Community expenditure emerge from the preliminary draft budget. First, it provided for an increase of more than 13 per cent. in expenditure on agricultural market support. That reflected the expected growth in compulsory expenditure on agriculture which resulted from falling world prices rather than from any slackening of control.
Secondly, it provided for an increase of about 20 per cent. in spending on structural operations and on research and development. Those areas now account for almost 30 per cent. of the total budget. The budget also included 65 million ecu for measures to combat fraud, which was further evidence of the Community's desire to root out fraud, although much more remains to be done.
On 27 July, the Council adopted a draft budget about 830 million ecu below that proposed by the Commission and more than 4·7 billion ecu below the overall ceiling in the financial perspective.
In the light of developments in eastern Europe, the Council decided that, exceptionally in 1991, it would not be appropriate to apply the maximum rate procedure to non-privileged, non-compulsory expenditure. However, the Council agreed to cut the Commission's proposed level of non-privileged expenditure by more than it had in previous years and endorsed a robust declaration making it clear that the procedure adopted in relation to this year's budget was an inevitable consequence of developments in eastern Europe and implied no weakening of budgetary discipline.
At the same meeting, the Commission said that it would present proposals for a revision of the financial perspective in the light of German unification. There was strong support from a number of member states—notably from Germany and France—for our view that the revision should cater for unification and for nothing else.
Finally, the Council decided to take the Parliament to court over the 1990 second supplementary budget. The Parliament excluded some 780 million ecu from the amount of the 1989 budget surplus to be taken into the 1990 budget on the basis that inclusion would reduce member states' VAT payments below 1·4 per cent. and that the Parliament had powers under the treaty in respect of revenue. The Council could not and did not accept that,


because its immediate practical consequence would have been to postpone bringing to account a substantial part of the 1989 budget surplus, with a consequent delay in member states receiving the benefit of reduced contributions. That would contradict the requirement of the financial regulation that surpluses should be brought to account at the earliest opportunity.
For that reason, and for the more fundamental reason that the Council alone has competence over revenue, the Council agreed to initiate a court action to amend the Parliament's adoption of the second supplementary budget.
The Parliament presented its amendments to the draft budget on 25 October and voted for modifications adding over 1·9 billion ecu in commitments and almost 1·6 billion ecu in payments. In its amendments, the Parliament anticipated the proposed revisions to the financial perspective and thus threatened to breach the existing ceiling. As, in effect the Parliament has the last word on matters of non-compulsory expenditure, its amendments amounted to a challenge to the Council to approve revisions along the lines that it wanted. Otherwise, the financial perspective would be breached, and the inter-institutional agreement would be thrown into question.
Two other problems emerged. The Council debated whether to reject two of the European Parliament's amendments to the structural funds category—known as category 2. These concerned a new environmental fund—LIFE—and a fund called "PERIFRA", intended to alleviate the effects of the Gulf crisis on poorer and outlying regions.
The second problem stemmed from the Parliament's proposals on research. The Parliament wanted two things—first, to reallocate resources within existing multi-annual framework programmes and, secondly, a substantial increase in spending outside those programmes.
The amendments caused a number of difficulties. In particular, the reallocation of resources along the lines proposed could not be reconciled with the framework programmes agreed by the Council in accordance with the treaty and with the inter-institutional agreement, and risked serious damage to the concept of multi-annual planning that the Community has developed to lend certainty to the funding of long-term projects.
Following preparatory work in the Budget Committee and the Committee of Permanent Representatives, the Budget Council undertook its second reading of the 1991 budget. Initial discussion on 15 November was adjourned until 19 November to take account of related Economic and Finance Council discussions of the outstanding revisions to the financial perspective on that day. As expected, the consideration of revisions to the financial perspective dominated decisions on the 1991 draft budget.
In response to the presidency's report on its continuing discussions of the revisions with the Parliament, the Council insisted on a tough line, demanding off-setting savings from within existing headroom in the financial perspective. Moreover, as part of that process, the Council pressed for a satisfactory compromise on the Parliament's amendments to the 1991 budget—in particular, on research. The presidency undertook to seek an acceptable compromise.
In the meantime, the Budget Council duly adopted its second reading position—in particular, it confirmed the rejection of the European Parliament's amendments on

research and rejected the LIFE and PERIFRA funds. Furthermore, the Council insisted that agreement to a limited number of new Commission posts should be conditional on implementation of the Court of Auditors' report on improved staff management. The amendments that were accepted amounted to 200 million ecu in commitments and 154 million ecu in payments.
The upshot was a revised draft budget in which commitments—at around 54·9 billion—are about 4·5 billion ecu below the overall ceiling in the financial perspective and in which member states' contributions are equivalent to 1 per cent. of Community GNP, compared with the annual sub-ceiling for own resources of 1·19 per cent.
Following further discussion at ECOFIN yesterday, I think that we may be close to an agreement on revisions to the financial perspective. There would be significant offsetting savings from within the existing headroom, the transfer of the Parliament's amendments on LIFE and PERIFRA funds out of the structural funds category of the budget, and modifications to the Parliament's amendments on research to bring them into line with existing framework programmes. The Parliament will undertake its second reading later in December, with a view to adopting the final 1991 budget before the end of the year.
The budget procedure is always a fairly tortuous affair, and this year has been no exception. We have had to be flexible in responding to major developments in eastern Europe, Germany and the Gulf. Equally, as a substantial net contributor, we have had to be firm in insisting that strict budget discipline is preserved. We shall continue to do so.
At the intergovernmental conference starting next week on institutional reform, we shall press hard for changes to the treaty which will intesify the war against fraud, deepen scrutiny of spending and require ever better value for the money supplied by tax payers and spent by the Community.

Mr. Chris Smith: I am glad to see the Financial Secretary still firmly in place—apparently the only fixed point in a whirling Treasury team.
First, I must make my usual complaint about the quality of the information presented to hon. Members on complex issues concerning the European Community budget. The Treasury's explanatory memoranda do not actually explain very much. The overall figures are set out rather better than they were a year ago, but the notes do not tell us much about the detailed discussions and negotiations that have taken place or about what has happened on the detailed items of each programme in the budget. It is difficult, to say the least, to find one's way from one document to another, and the format used by the Treasury does not help. I hope that the Government will continue to examine ways in which the presentation of information to the House can be improved. The Government must be accountable for what they are up to in the Council of Ministers and the information is crucial if the House is to do the job of scrutiny that it is supposed to perform.
We still do not have before us the Council's response to the European Parliament's budget. We do not have the


Council's detailed decisions about the various items in the European Parliament's amendments and, given that the Council's response is so crucial to the European Community's budgetary process, it is rather difficult for us to take an accurate snapshot of the present state of the discussions on and the development of the EC budget. I shall return to that point in a moment, because I have a number of specific items to raise with the Government.
When we reach this stage in the discussions next year, I trust that the Treasury—by then, I hope, under the control of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—will be able to present us with an account of exactly what has happened in the Council's response to the Parliament. It would be useful for us to know that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Even if we had all the information that we should, what power would the House have to make any changes?

Mr. Smith: The House certainly has the power that it should have, which is to scrutinise what the Government are up to, because the Government and Ministers are our representatives in the Council. We need to know what decisions the Council is taking, when it takes them and what measures it is proposing so that we can hold Ministers to account for what they are up to.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Surely all we need to know is that three quarters of the budget goes on agricultural subsidy, which costs every average family in this country £1,000 a year, or £20 a week. Those are the most salient points. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that figure needs to be reduced? What would he do if he were to take over the Treasury team with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)?

Mr. Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has woken up to join in our debate. There is much of importance in the documents, not just the item on agriculture. I shall refer to the item on agriculture in a moment. I happen to believe that it takes too great a share of the European Community budget and that we would like to see that share reducing over time. I said that last year, and I will continue to say it. There is much else that we need to scrutinise as well.
One small but important technical point that I need to raise with the Government was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) when he raised the obvious layman's question about what the figures are in pounds rather than in ecus. The Government, in all the figures that they have put before us, have used the conversion rate of the pound to the ecu of 1·435, which assumes that the pound is at its central rate within the exchange rate mechanism.
We all know, however, that the pound is currently substantially below its central rate within the exchange rate mechanism, which means that the calculation that the Government are currently using for the exchange rate between the pound and the ecu is incorrect. The pound is at a lower value than it was when the documents were drawn up. Obviously, one question that we must ask the Government is how much extra, in terms of our own

contribution to the budget, the lower standing of the pound as against the ecu will cost us as a result of those exchange rate fluctuations.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I do not want to disturb his flow too much, but with regard to his point about conversion, he mentioned the ERM central rate of £1 to 1·435 ecu, which is in volume 7, document 8182/90. When I looked at the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which accompanies the documents, I noticed that the conversion rate in that report is £1 to 1·387557 ecu. To which figure are we supposed to pay more attention?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend points exactly to the problem that I identified. The figure in that Select Committee report was used some months ago, before our entry into the exchange rate mechanism. I presume that the Select Committee took the actual rate of conversion at the time it drew up its report. The Government are now taking a theoretical rate of conversion in terms of our central rate within the exchange rate mechanism rather than the actual rate of conversion as of today.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Would not the simple answer be to talk of the good old British pound so that we all would know where we are? It is nonsense and gobbledegook to talk about ecus in the British House of Commons.

Mr. Smith: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not usually have much sympathy with what he says, but he has a valid point. In dealing with such matters, it would be useful if we could perhaps refer to ecus and pounds so that everyone can know exactly where we stand and what we are talking about.

Mr. Maude: It comes a little ill from the hon. Gentleman to sympathise with the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) for the good old British pound. As I understand Labour Members' recent pronouncements about their proposals for economic and monetary union, they would like to get rid of the pound altogether.

Mr. Smith: All the issues about economic and monetary union and the possibility of a single currency stand in the background of many of our discussions in the House. I shall refer to that matter in a moment or two.
In the meantime, the detail of the draft budget is important. One feature of the draft budget is certainly welcome, and that is that the agricultural support section 1 vote is well within the financial perspective by a considerable margin. It still, however, takes the lion's share of the Community budget. Over time, as I have mentioned, we would wish to see that pattern change. Much will depend on precisely what happens in the current round of general agreement on tariffs on trade discussions. None the less, the balance within the European Community budget between support for agriculture, which takes such an overwhelming proportion, and all the other social, regional and structural programmes in the European Community must change over time. We shall support that position.
Any increase in the agricultural support figures required to provide support for the new German Lander which have joined Germany from the former East Germany must come within the existing financial


perspective ceiling. It is possible to accommodate that within the existing ceiling. The financial perspective must not be amended to take account of that change.
We should also welcome within the draft budget the agreement that seems to have been reached between the Council and the Parliament to establish an environment fund. Even if it is at a very token level at this stage, it is none the less a small step in the right direction and, I hope, something that can be built on in future.
Elsewhere in the draft budget, however, the news is not so good, and it would be useful to know what part our Government have played in drawing up the response from the Council of Ministers to many of the proposals that have been made by the European Parliament. As I understand it—we do not have the papers in front of us, so I have been able to find this out only by direct contact with colleagues in the European Parliament—the European Parliament has made a range of proposals for spending, which is extremely valuable spending from our point of view, and it seems that the Council of Ministers has rejected them or has demanded cuts. It would be useful to know what role our Government and our representatives in the Council of Ministers have played in some of those decisions.
Let us consider, for example, item 3531 relating to controls, studies and analyses in connection with the fight against fraud, something about which the Government said that they were extremely concerned when we debated the Court of Auditors report some months ago. The Council is proposing a cut of 631,000 ecu in that budget. Item A354, on computerised customs networks for fraud prevention, which is a similarly important issue, is faced with a cut of 200,000 ecu. A cut of 13 million ecu in commitments and 10 million ecu in payments is being proposed in the financial support for transport infrastructure projects within the Community.
In item B3105, on the Lingua project, which is an extremely important educational programme for the children in our schools, the Council is proposing a cut of 2 million ecu. In item B34000, on industrial relations, the Council is proposing a cut of 1·1 million ecu. On measures to combat poverty, item B34103, the Council is proposing cuts of 2 million ecu.
Following some of the Government's statements, we had assumed that environmental concerns would be one of their priorities, but a cut of 2·68 million ecu is to be made in the budget of item B43043, on action to combat pollution caused by waste products. On item B5105, dealing with product safety measures, a cut of 500,000 ecu is being made. In item B75010, which deals with support for the Third world and the Community's contribution to the projects of non-governmental organisations, a cut of 13 million ecu is being proposed in commitments and of 7 million ecu in payments.
Those are just some of the decisions which, as far as I can establish, have been taken by the Council in relation to the proposals of the European Parliament. In some cases, they take the' position back to worse than it was when the first preliminary draft budget was proposed. Surely we should know what our Government have been up to when participating in those decisions?

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As the United Kingdom is one of the largest net payers into the Community, surely we should be pleased that there have been certain economies. Although

they have been described as cuts, they are probably economies because, once the legislation is under way with seedcorn money to launch the projects, it does not necessarily follow that spending on those areas should always increase. We have probably been successful in sonic of those areas and will not need as much money for them in the following year. To describe the proposals as cuts is probably incorrect. They are reductions, not cuts.

Mr. Smith: I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman, who appears to think that we currently have perfect safeguards against fraud in the Community, that our transport infrastructure is absolutely up to scratch and needs no support, that we have solved every problem relating to product safety across the Community, and that charities and voluntary organisations working in the Third world need very little support. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman reaches those conclusions. My colleagues arid I do not share those views.

Mr. Maude: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could therefore tell us which of those programmes he knows anything about, other than their titles which he has read out; which ones he would agree to; what the total cost of those increases would be; and the resulting addition to our net contribution to the budget.

Mr. Smith: I am happy to tell the Minister that I would not necessarily agree to a considerable number of the items in the budget of the European Parliament. We certainly share the aim of wishing to go through the budget carefully, to look at it item by item and programme by programme, to see where funds can usefully be directed and where they cannot. Any sensible Government would need to undertake that process. However, there are a number of extremely useful projects which need to be undertaken and I have drawn attention to some of them. I have taken the trouble to go into them in some detail simply to raise those areas of concern.
There are two other areas of concern——

Mr. Geraint Howells: rose——

Mr. Smith: I shall give way for the last time, because I have been very generous in giving way.

Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have listened with interest to what he has been saying. If I understood him correctly, he said earlier that he was very much in favour of cutting farm subsidies. What type of policy will he and his party pursue to ensure that family farms in Britain will survive without any support of any kind?

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misheard—perhaps deliberately. I did not at any stage say that we wished to cut farm subsidies. I said that we wished to redress the balance within the European Community budget and to see a reducing proportion of that budget being devoted to agricultural support, and an increasing proportion being used for support for the regions and for social policy. That has been the clear position of my party for many a long year, and it is one to which we still subscribe.
We need to raise two other areas of concern with the Government. I should like to know where the funds are coming from for the aid that has been promised to the front-line Gulf states, and for Germany's unification costs.


I understand that there is a debate under way at the moment between the Council and the Parliament about whether those items can be contained within the existing financial perspective. I understand that the European Parliament is insisting that a revision to the financial perspective may well be required. The Council seems to think otherwise.
I believe that earlier today—it may have been yesterday—ambassadors met under the Italian presidency to discuss whether a proposed revision to the financial perspectives for those two items would be required. I also understand that the United Kingdom representative at the meeting voted against any revision. If that is the case and my information is correct, we need to ask the Government where they believe that the funds for those two commitments will come from because, over time, they may be quite expensive. It would be useful to know the reasoning behind the Government's decision to instruct their representative—as they must have done—to cast our vote in that way at that ambassador-level meeting.
My next point is, in some ways, the most important point about the budget. We must recognise the crucial importance of regional policy in the European Community. In that respect, item 2 of the budget headings—dealing with the structural funds—will take on an ever-increasing importance. We are delighted to see an increased commitment in the 1991 European budget for the structural funds used to enhance development in the less wealthy regions of the Community. It is part of a four-year process of doubling the structure funds, which we welcome. However, we would want to go further.
As the European economy becomes increasingly co-ordinated, regional policy will be ever more important. That will be especially true if we move towards economic and monetary union with a single currency and a common monetary policy. In such circumstances, an absolutely essential requirement would be a strong regional policy to help to redress imbalances between different parts of Europe. That view is shared by the overwhelming majority of our European partners. We do not want a Europe divided between rich and poor regions or rich and poor citizens, but that is the clear danger if we leave everything to the operation of the market. Regional policy and an enhancement of the structural funds are crucial if we are to achieve genuine economic and social cohesion across the Community.
Meanwhile, the British Government, even in their new clothes, remain virtually the only people who do not share that view. They denigrate a regional policy approach at every opportunity. They believe that the market will do it all, but it will not. The Labour party sets a key priority on the development of a European regional policy and wishes to discuss that issue constructively with its European colleagues at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Christopher Gill: rose——

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way, because I am drawing my remarks to a close.
If we are to consider what the Government have actually said about regional policy, it is worth going back to an historic document dated November 1989—just 12 months ago—entitled: "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union." The document is

pre-history and even pre-hard ecu. It was the "12 competing currencies—the Nigel Lawson scheme", brought forward by the Government with a fanfare of trumpets. Its relatively brief discourse makes some interesting points, the most important and perhaps the most tragic of which relates to regional policy. It notes the doubling of structural funds by 1992, intended to help reduce regional disparity, but continues, in a classic sentence:
But regional disparities will be alleviated primarily through the operation of the market.
That is the Government's belief.
In some respects I am pleased to see the Financial Secretary nodding his head, because it makes it crystal clear that the Government have not changed their spots one iota as a result of recent changes. They believe that economic inequalities will be realistically redressed only through market operation—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary seems to have changed his mind—I give way to him.

Mr. Maude: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what he read out and the word that he missed in his earlier caricature—the word "primarily."

Mr. Smith: I am happy to reinstate the word "primarily", because it means that the Government simply see the market operation as the main focus of their approach. It is quite clear that they believe that regional disparities will be redressed primarily through the operation of the market. We believe that those disparities will be redressed primarily by having a strong, sensible, secure regional policy, which we want to put in place. The budget goes some way towards achieving that end, and most of our European partners agree with us, rather than the Government. I look forward to the day when a Labour Government will see that regional policy fully and properly in place.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
notes with concern the further substantial increases proposed in agricultural spending under the headings EAGGF Guarantee, EAGGF Guidance and Agriculture, and expresses astonishment at the proposals by the European Parliament that these figures should be further increased.".
The amendment expresses my hon. Friends' deep concern at the agricultural spending element in the European Community budget. It was selected for debate by Mr. Speaker at a timely moment. In an ordinary year, the issue of how many ecus the EC budget spends on agricultural subsidies might seem to many to be an archane and academic subject, but this year is different. As the House knows, the Uruguay round of negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade is stalling on the issue, which is so contentious that last night there was rioting in the streets of Brussels. That trouble may yet be the harbinger of worse worries still to come.
We are discussing the topic against not just a background of a five-minutes-to-midnight crisis in world trade talks, but a looming catastrophe in world trade. The word "catastrophe" is justified because it would be a catastrophe if, as expected, the GATT era, which has done so much for the prosperity of the world, flounders and sinks on the rock of EC agricultural subsidies and the world is thrown back into the dark ages of protectionism and trade wars. Those conditions of protectionism created


the slump in world trade of the 1930s, symbolised here in Britain by the Jarrow marches. The spectre of falling living standards and, in some parts of the world, poverty and starvation, will loom again if the EC and other Governments fail to tackle the problem of billowing agricultural subsidies.
To call the EC level of agricultural spending on subsidies "billowing" is far too polite. The common agricultural policy has blown Europe off course into a fool's paradise of extravagant and excessive agricultural spending. The average European family of four now spends £17 a week on subsidising agriculture. Some two thirds of the European Community's £40 billion budget now goes to subsidise farmers, who do not seem particularly content with the results of the bountiful munificence conferred on them.
No end to the problem is in sight. The United States and the rest of the world, as symbolised by the Cairns group in the GATT talks are right to be critical of our failure to tackle agricultural subsidies in a meaningful way. My hon. Friend the Minister said, as he was bound to do, that this year at least the agricultural guideline spending figures had not been breached by the Community. But in 1991, as he was fair enough to say, those guidelines are likely to be breached and the story of overspending is likely to be with us again.
The CAP reforms of the 1980s were not really reforms, but merely cosmetic improvements. After seven years of ineffective tinkering with the CAP we still have a far too high price support level, far too much interference in the domestic market and too much subsidised dumping of the resulting surplus on the international export market. The cost of that folly to the British or the European consumer is painfully expensive. I wonder how many families in this country know that their pocket books are being hit to the tune of £17 a week for agricultural spending.
Subsidies distort and artificially inflate the price of land, encourage intensive farming methods which damage the land and sometimes involve mistreatment of animals. Under the extraordinarily lax EC system, the subsidies often end up in the pockets of fiddlers, fraudsters and cheats, rather than genuine farmers. The small 3 per cent. of the European population who work in farming are not noticeably prosperous. It is a long time since any of us with farming constituents talked to a happy farmer, and the same is true on the continent. Now these agricultural subsidies have brought us to the edge of the greatest crisis in world trade since the 1930s. So something is going seriously wrong, and one wonders whether anyone in the European Commission is listening seriously to this litany of justified complaints.
The answer seems to be that the Commission is not listening seriously enough. It displays a negative attitude which speaks volumes for the political clout of French and German farmers. I hope that, at least in Germany, those attitudes will change following the German elections, but I have my doubts.
America, the Third world and all the nations of the world are now lined up against the European Commission and the European Community. Their demand—it is a negotiating position, of course—is that the EC should cut farm subsidies by 90 per cent. The EC response has been to offer a cut of 30 per cent. If that were a genuine figure, it might be a step—albeit a small step—in the right direction. It would not be bad news if we could save £5 or £6 a week for the average British consumer. There would

then be some hope of Third-world and east European producers being able to start selling their goods on world markets at real prices.
The European Commission's response, however, has been phoney. The small print of the EC reply to the GATT negotiators says that half the 30 per cent. cut in subsidies has already been achieved, apparently without anyone noticing, and that EC farmers will be compensated with other subsidies for reductions in subsidy resulting from the GATT talks. The EC document concerned reads:
The Commission will propose measures to compensate for losses that the liberalisation of agricultural trade will cause to farmers' incomes".
In plain language, that means that whatever subsidies are reduced on the GATT swings will be increased again on the Commission's roundabouts.
The European parliamentarians seem perfectly happy to go along with this folly—to give the nod to this series of jolly backhanders. Indeed, they want to increase spending on subsidies. Our amendment draws attention to the increase in the EAGGF guarantees and guidance proposed by the European Parliament—it expresses astonishment at them. When European parliamentarians are asked what they did in the great trade war in years to come, they will say, "We stoked it up. We proposed an increase of 16 per cent." These MEPs will soon discover that a fool's paradise can be the anteroom to a fool's hell. All hell will break out if GATT breaks down, as I now think it will, and we will be back to the dark ages of protectionism, trade wars, hardship and starvation.
We must get back to fundamentals and recognise that today's farm policies in the EEC were created at a time when the Commission was erroneously predicting world food shortages. When I campaigned for a yes vote in the 1976 referendum, the arguments of almost all those in favour of staying in the Community included the cry that we should stay in because we needed access to adequate food supplies.
Now it is clear that all this was a charade. There never were going to be shortages of agricultural or food supplies. We live in a world of agricultural abundance. Hunger is caused by inefficiency and poverty, not by scarcity or inability to produce. Over-production is the problem. Sooner or later, we must grasp the nettle and set farmers free. We must give them the basic economic freedom to produce what they want, using whatever technologies they want, and to sell their produce freely at home or overseas at the prices they can get for it.
That would be a revolution—uncomfortable, but no worse than the original GATT revolution when manufacturing industry was set free—to the great benefit of world trade and prosperity. Of course the revolution could not be effected overnight. There would have to be a crawling-peg phase-out of agricultural subsidies over several years and special arrangements for small family farmers and hill farmers. There would be a lot of political trouble, but Europe must put its agricultural house in order.
The Government have a good record of pushing for these reforms. I noted that my hon. Friend the Minister said that it will be essential to resist further increases in agricultural spending. He avoided saying how he would resist them, but we shall be glad to take his word for that, just as we take at face value statements supporting the GATT negotiations from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend join me and others in calling on the United States at least to reduce and possibly even to abolish its internal deficiency payment support system, which forms the bulk of United States internal support arrangements?

Mr. Aitken: I agree that the United States does not have clean hands in this matter and that it, too, must deal with its enormous subsidies. There have been some signs in the negotiations that it is willing to do that. At least America has someone with whom to negotiate seriously. The United States has sided with the Third world producers——

Mr. Dykes: The difference is that the United States is siding with the Third world and others in respect of the export refund system but not of the internal support payment system.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right, but it is good to support reforms of export subsidies on prices. So far, Britain alone in Europe has been a good European and a good internationalist in this matter. We have been pressing for change, and I applaud the stand that our Government have taken thus far, which is why I shall advise my hon. Friends not to vote against the Government on this amendment, important though it is and correct though its terms are.
The Commission is fiddling around with the treaty of Rome while the GATT talks burn, seeming to regard it as a higher priority to hold inter-governmental conferences on political and economic and monetary union while neglecting these more vital issues. If the amendment does nothing else, it will concentrate the eyes of the House, as the eyes of the world are concentrated, on the serious crisis in GATT which will blow up into a catastrophe unless Europe starts to put its agricultural house in order along the lines that I have suggested.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), although his amendment is rather wimpish. If it had really encapsulated his genuine anger, it would have been couched in stronger language.
I shall not delay the House long because we have only until 7 pm to discuss this important series of budget proposals. I went and collected my papers on them from the Vote Office; any documents that come in such great quantities must contain information of some value, but having to get through them all in a two-hour debate makes a mockery of the procedures of this House, of the EC budget and of the way in which it is discussed by those who are supposed to have some influence on or control over what takes place.
It is virtually impossible to understand the subject of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) talked about presentation. I asked the Minister a genuine question because I had become confused about what budget we were considering. I see at least two figures for the 1991 budget: one of 55,472 mecu and one of 59,384 mecu. I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who knows a great deal more about these matters than I do, that there are draft preliminary budgets, preliminary budgets, final budgets and all sorts of others, and I do not know which one we are discussing this evening.
I am not sure either which conversion rate we are using, which is why I asked the Minister whether we were using the rate of £1 to 1·387 ecu—the figure given by the Select Committee on European Legislation—or the rate of £1 to 1·435 ecu—the figure that the Government use. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the latter rate does not exist anyway—it is all nonsense.
The common agricultural policy is making a mockery of the EC and reducing it to the level of the absurd. I was not able to follow the figures given by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) because, when I looked at the budget, it seemed that the amounts allocated to the CAP worked out at about 56 per cent. of the total, whereas the hon. Gentleman said that it was two thirds.

Mr. Butcher: I listened with great interest when the hon. Gentleman asked for the figures to be provided in pounds. Does he think that he has been well served by his Front-Bench spokesmen on the matter of European monetary union, which, if followed to its logical conclusion, will mean that the pound will go? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to test his Front-Bench spokesmen on what yesterday's statement means for the future of the pound?

Mr. Banks: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not realising that I am a Front Bencher. I do not brag about that outside because careerism is not looked upon with great affection by the London Labour movement. I am quite satisfied with the explanations given in the debate by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. This is a complicated matter.
I have said that I look forward to the day when we have a federal Europe with only one currency, one European Government, one President, one Chancellor and so on. I should add that that is not Opposition Front-Bench policy. Nothing that my Front-Bench colleagues have said in the debate frightens or worries me. We have a long way to go. The common agricultural policy is at the centre of our debate and it is making nonsense of the whole European movement. It reduces it to a sordid, silly and scandalous level. Until we get rid of the CAP and the nonsense that it encapsulates, the whole concept of Europe and the EEC will be ridiculed all over Britain.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We should realise that the common agricultural policy was wrong from the beginning. I campaigned against entry to Europe and I warned the farmers in my Province about what would happen. It has happened. Northern Ireland had a prosperous agricultural community. What happened to it? We were not allowed to purchase at reasonable prices feedingstuffs on the world market and as a result we lost two thirds of our laying fowl and two thirds of our pig industry. The whole system is catching up on us and we are beginning to see where we are going. I am a Member of the European Parliament and I can tell the House that there is only one common policy in Europe—the common agricultural policy. That is why there is such a rage to pour money into it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: There is also the common fisheries policy. When the hon. Gentleman warned his farmers about the dangers of the CAP, did he also warn fishermen in his Province about the


dangers inherent in the common fisheries policy? Does he agree that the interests of fishermen seem to be disregarded by the decision makers in Brussels?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy are tied together.
I warned our fishermen about what would happen. It has happened and will continue to happen unless we apply the brakes. However, the House cannot apply the brakes. I asked an Opposition spokesman to tell me what power we had. He said that we could scrutinise what Ministers do in Europe. Our Ministers can fight with all their might but when the votes are cast the majority in Europe will be against them. There is no point in hon. Members hammering Ministers, because Ministers have no power in Europe. The House needs more than scrutinising power. It needs real power so that it can call a halt.
Our farmers were encouraged to spend vast sums on dairy farming and beef production. Now they are penalised because they did what the Common Market told them to do. They cannot now be told that their subsidies will have to go. I am totally against farmers resorting to violence, but I understand how they feel. They did what the Common Market told them to do—produce, produce, produce—but they did it too well and now they are being penalised.
If we are to unshackle ourselves, we must formulate a policy that will help farmers in the interim. Farmers would be glad to be free, but to bring about that freedom, we must have a reasonable policy and neither the Government nor the Opposition have said anything about that. I recently pressed Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on how to help farmers. There does not seem to be a policy on that.
The backcloth to Europe is monetary and political union. I was amazed at some of the statements about the former Prime Minister. Our local newspaper on Saturday sated:
ad of Germany's central bank said yesterday Mrs. Thatcher 'was absolutely right' in warning that EC monetary union would weaken sovereignty.
And he told Common Market countries they should take heed. The Bundesbank president … Stockholm School of Economics: 'As a matter of fact monetary union means a loss of sovereignty'.
Market states must be careful to avoid what happened with German reunification. There monetary union forced political union, he said.
That is the head of the central bank and not the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) speaking. We should heed that warning and find a way to free ourselves from the shackles and set the farmers and the fishermen free.
No one knows more about fishermen who ply their trade off the coast of Ulster than I do, and I know how they feel. They see their trade being taken from them and there is nothing that they can do about it. We should face that. It is ridiculous that this British House of Commons has just two hours on a Tuesday afternoon to decide such an issue. That is the sorry pass to which the European Community has brought us.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I agree only with the latter part of the speech by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), when he spoke about us having so little time to discuss this matter. I am not a member of the Stockholm school of economics, but I

appreciated the election address by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who seems to want to be the next President of the European Community.
There are several matters to be discussed and we have a short time in which to do it. The key issues in the debate are the parts of the budget that are clearly being cut, the direction of aid to eastern Europe, the assistance to front-line states in the Gulf, budgetary control and the budget in the wider context of European Community developments. Expenditure on agriculture seems to be dominating the debate. I understand why that is so, and I shall return to the matter.
It is clear from the Treasury's explanatory memo of 30 November that the European Parliament wants to spend more than the Budget Council. The differences arise because the Council has rejected the Parliament's amendments on research and has agreed only to token entries for the PERIFRA and like projects that are regional and environmental. Because of that, they are both extremely important.
We want to support the European Parliament's decision in those matters, but as it has little power, we must give it more power. Moreover, as its programmes are less than its financial perspective, budget rectitude appears to be being maintained. I cannot go into as much detail as I should like, but I regret that the preliminary draft budget for exchanges of young workers is being cut. I should have thought that it would be highly desirable to continue that, to obtain a greater understanding among the peoples of Europe.
There are also cuts in the Youth for Europe programme. The proposed cut in the PDB for that programme is 2·5 million ecu and, as with the proposed cut in the programme of exchanges of young workers, the European Parliament is trying to reverse that cut. Despite the importance of training young people, it has not been able to do so. Measures for disabled people are also to be cut, and that is extremely regrettable in this day and age, when social conditions for disabled people are improving. They should be able to obtain the necessary resources for a better quality of life.
There are other aspects of the programme—for example, support to eastern Europe is extremely important—but the two major aspects are agriculture and additionality. Quite rightly, many of us have been lobbied this afternoon about the latter by the Coalfield Communities Campaign. I listened with care to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) speaking about the agriculture budget and the CAP. However, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, the CAP is the only common policy that the European Commmunity has ever had. If there were other policies, there might be greater bargaining powers. By default, the European Community has not fashioned other policies, although it has had plenty of opportunity to do so over the past 15 years. I regret that, because we need other European policies to balance the CAP.
Many crocodile tears have been shed this evening about the CAP. I noted the comparison that the hon. Member for Thanet, South made with the deficiency payment system operating in the United States, which gives a great deal of support. The Americans have come to the GATT round negotiations with proposals for a 75 per cent. cut in subsidies, but that has yet to be debated by Congress. It is by no means certain that Congress will accede to such a


cut. Given the pork barrel politics of the mid-west and the farmers there, I doubt that it will go along with the 75 per cent. cut.
The post-war systems of support for agriculture in the United States, Canada and other countries, and in this country after the Agriculture Act 1947, and the CAP itself show that support for agriculture is a primary objective for all western Governments. Are we serious in wanting an overnight dismantling of those systems, with all that that will mean for agricultural communities? That life support system cannot be taken away from them all of a sudden.
We are all in favour of the liberalisation of trade and of GATT, but the reality is not as simple as that. There are grave distortions of trade on world markets. For example, one sees few Japanese cars in France, and few British cars in Japan. Great barriers need to be taken down, and it will take a long time to achieve that.
Our agriculture is in serious trouble. In the GATT round, a 30 per cent. cut has been proposed for European Community support, but Britain has been making cuts in support since 1984. Now, in 1990, we have the lowest farm incomes in real terms since 1945. That compares with the circumstances that made it necessary to introduce the Agriculture Act 1947 to support agriculture.
Farmers in my constituency are going bankrupt, and many young farmers are selling off their stock and letting their land. It is all very well to discuss matters of world trade and support systems in an academic manner, but farmers are suffering grievously and many of them will not survive the next 18 months. The matter must be treated seriously. If we are to readjust, we must bring into balance supply and demand in food, as that will even up the pricing system. We cannot let rip the market in agricultural products, because the market will not support our agriculture. European farmers demonstrated in Brussels and Japanese and American farmers demonstrated there, too, because their family farms will go under as a result of the GATT round.
World trade must be liberalised, but that cannot be achieved overnight and agriculture must continue to have support systems. I am thinking in particular of the family units not only in Wales but in Britain, the European Community and worldwide. There will be grave social unrest without a commitment to support systems. The planning of the CAP needs to be readjusted and its funding must be better directed to the family farming units that require support. There is undoubtedly wastage within the CAP, but that does not mean that we should abolish it. Without such better direction of funds, I fear for the future of our agriculture.

Mr. John Butcher: I gave an undertaking that I would not detain the House for more than five minutes and I shall endeavour to discharge that undertaking.
This debate, coupled with the deliberations of the House on European monetary union and on the social and regional fund assistance, which have been linked to the debate by the Labour party, is of key importance. It is no exaggeration to say that the debate about European

monetary union is probably the biggest economic question as well as the biggest constitutional question that the House has faced since 1945.
Thus far, the House has tried to conduct the debate in an open and candid fashion. I hope that Labour Members will not think me too provocative if I point out that, hitherto, Labour Members have been able to lie back and watch the debate raging on the Government Benches, because they are putting together their policy documents—documents that will eventually surface in a manifesto that they will put before the public. I implore Labour Members to be a little more forthcoming than they were until yesterday. Yesterday, if I am interpreting the remarks of one of their Front Benchers properly, they attempted to outbid the Government in their enthusiasm for progression towards European monetary union.
I listened carefully to the Treasury shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He appeared to say that there was a quid pro quo for the Labour party's resolute commitment to European monetary union—that a future Labour Government would argue for a major increase in regional fund expenditure and assistance to the poorer regions. Presumably that includes the poorer regions of Britain.
That is an awful attempt to sell the parliamentary Labour party an utterly false prospectus. There are only three contributors to the fund—Germany, France and the United Kingdom. One of them, Germany, has plenty to do in funding a £150 billion programme—which is tantamount to a huge welfare programme—for its cousins and other relatives in the eastern provinces of the new federal republic. The key paymaster of that fund is in no position to consider either increases in or additional takes from countries such as the United Kingdom, let alone Greece, Spain, Portugal and others. If the Labour party is arguing that it will go for full-blown EMU—which it appears to be doing—on the basis that it will get back resources from the Commission, it is misleading its supporters in the House.
It is ironic that we are having this debate on regional aid. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury quite literally included it. If the Germans will not pay, and if the French just stand pat—which they usually do—the only people who can increase the payments of the fund are the British. What is the Labour party's argument? Presumably it is that Britain must increase its payments to Europe in order to achieve a bigger payment from the regional fund, in exchange for a loss of sovereignty on our currency and constitutionally—something that most members of the Labour party, both rank and file and in this House, would find unacceptable. What a way to run a debate on the biggest question facing this country since 1945.
I have made my views on the common agricultural policy clear. There is a dangerous threat to the GATT round. I am not a socialist, but I have argued in some two dozen Council of Ministers meetings in Europe for the interests of the third world and the poorer countries in their trading relationships with the EEC. I have argued for the Lomé countries. If we do not achieve a clear position on a free-trading, open-looking Europe, with zero barriers, our arguments on aid programmes to help those poorer countries will be academic and meaningless. There will be a huge lacuna in the logic that we have deployed to get to that protectionist position in Europe.
Hitherto, the real debate may have taken place on only one side of the Chamber. As of yesterday, the real debate appears to be beginning on the other side, the Opposition side. I hope that this House will be accorded the privilege of a free vote on these issues. It has been argued elsewhere that there should even be a referendum. I sincerely hope that the House will do its fellow EEC members the courtesy of candid information and an open and honest debate on this question.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall follow the fine example set by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and make only a brief intervention.
I part company with the hon. Gentleman in his criticism of the role of the parliamentary Labour party in the debate. The major defining characteristic of debates on critical matters such as this is the lack of interest displayed by so many hon. Members on both sides of the House. A few moments ago, when we debated the decision of the President of the European Court of Justice on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—an important decision concerning the constitutional position of this Parliament—there were fewer than 18 hon. Members in the Chamber. That is characteristic of this place—an appalling and near-fatal lack of interest in what is taking place within the European Community of 12 nations.
I agree with much of what has been said about: the disastrous common agricultural policy. It has damaged, and continues severely to damage, the very structure of the European Community. I hold a similar view on the common fisheries policy. That so-called common policy is falling into even further disrepute in our fishing communities.
The plain fact is that the European Community fishing fleet is too big for the stocks upon which it depends. The fleet must be severely reduced, especially in the United Kingdom. According to the multi-annual guidance programme, our fleet must suffer a reduction of between 30 and 40 per cent. before the end of 1991. If that sort of reduction must be inflicted upon our fishing fleet and our fishermen, and on those who find their work in that indigenous industry, it must be done humanely. There must be a decommissioning scheme, both in this country and in the littoral states of the European Community, that will allow fishermen to avoid the terrible fate of being driven ashore and into bankruptcy.
We are talking not only of people being put out of work but of small coastal communities, located hundreds of miles from Brussels—indeed, hundreds of miles from London—that will wither away. The only beneficiaries will be the people looking for holiday homes in our picturesque fishing villages.

Mr. Gill: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on the fishing industry. Is it not ironic that the position in the fishing industry that he is describing has come about despite many programmes of aid to assist with the building of new vessels, all with the aim of improving the marketing and production of the product? Is that not symptomatic of what will happen to all the industries affected by structural funds? Despite all the benefits that are supposed to flow from the introduction of structural funds, it all appears to end in tears.

Dr. Godman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I blame both Conservative and Labour Administrations. While we have had to face up to those MAGP applications, our fishing fleets have grown in size. That is an insane policy, given the fragile nature of stocks, especially those in the North sea. Indeed, off the west coast of Scotland and in the Irish sea, the stocks are equally fragile. We cannot allow them to be overfished, or the small communities will be destroyed. That would be a scandal for the nation and for Parliament.
I hope that I can elicit a response from the Minister on two points. First, it might surprise some hon. Members to know that I am pleased about two elements in the huge document that we have. One, on pages 529 and 530, is the aid programme of 20 million ecus for Romanian orphanages. Will United Kingdom non-governmental organisations be involved in the monitoring of that aid? There has been a deal of press speculation about the somewhat shady characters who have become involved in aid for those young children in such desperate circumstances.
What monitoring will there be, and can we be certain that the aid will go to those young children who so desperately need such assistance? Will the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, which has considerable experience in assisting children caught up in equally tragic circumstances, be involved? Despite the powerlessness of this place in seeking to restrain or influence decisions taken at a strategic level in Brussels, those are important questions for the young children in the Romanian orphanages.
Secondly, I welcome the aid for financial and technical co-operation with Latin American developing countries which is detailed on pages 483 and 484. I have genuine hopes for the establishment of democracies in, for example, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. In El Salvador, the United Nations mediators are playing an important role in bringing guerrillas, the army and the so-called Government to the negotiating table. More aid should be given to those countries, but what discussions have taken place with United Nations officials who are directly concerned with establishing parliamentary democracies in such countries, particularly the three that I have mentioned?

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): This has been a useful and helpful debate but, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) knows, the Opposition Benches are empty because nothing can be done about the massive expenditure of £40,000 million, or about the court decision now affecting his fishermen and others throughout the United Kingdom. Basically, we are utterly powerless. Only if the Minister were to accept the amendment could any good at all come of this debate.
We know that jobs in every constituency will be affected, factories will close and trade will be disrupted if the GATT talks break down. Those talks are breaking down because, sadly, the EC has become the protectionist wrecker of the GATT. Instead of offering some reduction in farm spending, we have offered a bogus formula, which I am sure that the Minister accepts is not a reduction in the farm subsidy at all. Half the alleged 30 per cent. cut in the £23,000 million farm subsidy has, it is claimed, already taken place and the other half will be replaced by other


subsidies. The Minister must at least tell the GATT that the United Kingdom recognises that the EC has offered nothing, that that is scandalous and that we will work in any way that we can within the EC to see that there is some meaningful comparison.
Those who think that farm subsidies have not been increasing should look at a parliamentary answer given on 19 October which set out clearly the fact that since the Government came to power agricultural subsidies from the EC have increased by about 260 per cent. and, since we joined the EC, they have increased by about 1,000 per cent. Looking to the future, all the signs are that, in 1991, agricultural spending will go through the roof.
The reasons are obvious. The beef and lamb markets have collapsed, while production has increased. We all know that that is true. In addition, the exchange rate of the dollar has fallen and German unification has imposed extra costs, all of which will add to the FEOGA guarantee commitments. If that happens, the EC will do yet another accountancy fiddle, and then what will the Government do? As the Minister said, in 1987 there was the agreement on strict budgetary controls, but when it came to 1988 an accountancy fraud was perpetrated by means of a metric year. The Minister works hard for us in Europe and I think that he knows that the same thing will happen next year. All the signs are that we will break through the new higher barriers, and the only way that we will be able to cope is through another accountancy fraud.
We should accept that there is no way in which the EC will agree to reform of the CAP. Any thoughts of that should simply be thrown aside. There is not the slightest chance that all the silly talk about new reforms and controls will have any effect. They can simply be overcome by an accountancy fraud, or some other kind of fraud. The Minister knows that fraud exists because the figures given disregard special provisions made for the elimination of surpluses of 1,400 mecu.
What on earth can we do? The Government must start saying what they think about this. That would be a step forward. The next time the EC wants more cash, we shall simply have to say no. That will be the only point at which we shall have any power. Unless we say no, we are completely and utterly powerless.
I hope that the Government will not follow the shameful example of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). This has been a good debate and I agree that most hon. Members have spoken sincerely, but the hon. Gentleman, when asked whether he was in favour of cutting agricultural subsidies, said no, he was just in favour of cutting a proportion and that, if other expenditure was increased, a proportion would be kept.
That is shameful, speaking as the hon. Gentleman does for a party which represents working people and for whom it has fought sincerely and fairly. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. He should appreciate that people in London are homeless and people elsewhere are starving, while he and his colleagues are agreeing to spend £140 million each and every week on the dumping and destruction of food.
There is nothing that we can do about that dreadful spending, the fraud or the fact that we shall once again break through all the limits while the same old tactics are used, but I hope that hon. Members will realise that what

we are doing today will have a nasty effect on jobs. I hope that the Government will start saying clearly that they believe that what is happening to the CAP is shameful, that it helps no one and that they disagree with the CAP proposals and the EC stance in the Uruguay round, which is simply a fraud and a farce, as are so many things to do with the EC.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The explanatory memorandum states on page 4 that the Community budget has significant financial and policy implications. That is certainly an understatement. The budget perpetuates the structural funds, the regional development fund, the social fund and not least, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, the 30 million ecu to be spent on the agricultural guidance and guarantee fund.
The structural fund has done great harm to both the agricultural and fisheries industries. We have only to look at the end result to know that is so. There is over-production, and mortal damage has been done to traditional family farming. An otherwise efficient industry has been weakened, and serious international antagonism has been created. That is apparent in the current GATT round, and many of us are aware of the damage that has been done to the Third world in the process.
Higher expenditure, lower incomes, and chaos in world markets are the consequence of the structural fund. Does my right hon. Friend accept that fraud is endemic and deep rooted in many budget policies? How many of these budget measures would the Government have taken on their own account? Are the Government satisfied that the functions performed under the budget are not already duplicated by British organisations such as development boards and agencies? How do many of the articles in the budget accord with our political principles of non-intervention and a free market economy?

Mr. Roger Knapman: If subsidiarity means anything at all, could not agricultural support be left to national farmers?

Mr. Gill: If subsidiarity is to be made meaningful, the British Government will have to do an enormous amount to make it a reality. I am sad to say that we are at fault in this country in taking to the centre rights and controls that really belong with lower authorities. My hon. Friend makes a good point when he suggests that agricultural support should be repatriated to the United Kingdom, so that we may exercise more control over how our farmers are supported, and have more say in the way in which our intrinsically efficient industry, which can compete not only in the European market but worldwide, should develop. It would be so much easier to make such considerations within our own shores.
The final question that I wish to put to my hon. Friend is whether he recognises in the budget that is before us yet another blueprint for socialism.

Mr. Maude: This has been a valuable debate, and not one that has taken a party political approach, which is desirable and right. The House properly takes a serious interest in these matters, and I regret that our debate had to be truncated, with rather less than two hours available


to us. The debate was originally meant to last half a day. If there had been fewer bogus points of order from Opposition Members at the beginning, more time would have been available for debate.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked whether there would be monitoring by British non-governmental organisations of support to Romanian orphanages. I cannot provide him with an answer, but I acknowledge his genuine and proper concern, and I shall ensure that he receives a satisfactory reply. The hon. Gentleman asked also about aid to Latin American countries and whether there had been discussions with UN officials concerned with the establishment of democracies. I understand that such discussions have taken place, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer. I shall ensure that my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provide the hon. Gentleman with a reply as soon as possible.
Much of the debate focused on the common agricultural policy. As a Minister, one is always keen to try to draw together the sense of the House and to achieve a consensus. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that the common agricultural policy has not found many friends in the House today. Attitudes have ranged from the very hostile to the fairly hostile, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), to whose contribution I shall refer later.
Clearly it is undesirable that spending on the CAP should increase further, but clearly it will be difficult to constrain an increase in spending. Equally clearly, we must continue trying to do so, as we have done consistently during our term of office. I am not as despondent as some of my hon. Friends about the prospects of achieving a resolution to the GATT negotiations. I believe that realism will prevail and that there will be a satisfactory outcome. It is of overwhelming importance that there should be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) warned, the absence of an agreement would lead to a perhaps not so gradual erosion of the multilateral trading arrangements, which would bring impoverishment across the world. There is an enormously heavy burden on those conducting the negotiations to do so in a way that will allow agreement to be reached.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asked whether I accept that there is fraud in the European Community. Yes, I do. Of course there is fraud in the way in which some of the European Community's money is spent. It is essential that proper action is taken to fight that. I mentioned the budget line of additional funds to fight fraud. The Commission has started to take the problem seriously, and I assure my hon. Friend that the British Government at least will be constantly at hand to ensure that the Commission retains an interest in the fight against fraud.
My hon. Friend asked also whether there is duplication of spending. I believe not, in this country. We do all that we can to avoid duplication. I know from a previous office that I held of my hon. Friend's close interest in subsidiarity, which I am glad that he maintains.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor expressed passing concern about the disproportionate amount of agricultural spending. His solution is that, rather than control agricultural spending, more should be spent on everything else. That thought had an echo in the contribution of the hon. Member for Islington, South and

Finsbury (Mr.Smith), whose remarks were rather illuminating. He spoke of economic and monetary union, and seemed to believe that it would be all right for Britain to lose the power to take decisions, provided there were huge transfers of resources.
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, if there were to be such transfers, they would overwhelmingly be from the United Kingdom to elsewhere. If the hon. Gentleman had understood that—which I doubt—he might well take a different view about whether the proposals constitute a good bargain for the United Kingdom. I do not believe that they do; I believe that they constitute a very bad bargain.
In general, the hon. Gentleman's speech demonstrated an extraordinarily undiscriminating approach to the European Community budget. He read out a list of the European Parliament's proposals to increase spending, all of which had nice cuddly titles. That is all that the hon. Gentleman knew about them: they sounded nice. If that is the Labour party's approach to public spending—if it sounds nice, commit yourself to it and look at the small print later—it is lucky that Labour's chances of being elected are very slight. Its attitude seems to be, "If it sounds nice, buy it; if the European Parliament suggests it, buy it; if the two coincide, we must have it."

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must now put the Question on the amendment.

Mr. Aitken: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that, as it is now 7 pm, the hon. Gentleman cannot withdraw the amendment. By resolution of the House, I must put the Question.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [30 November], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 20, Noes 188.

Division No. 17]
[7pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Lewis, Terry


Aitken, Jonathan
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Body, Sir Richard
Moate, Roger


Canavan, Dennis
Nellist, Dave


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tarn
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Fry, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gill, Christopher



Godman, Dr Norman A.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Bob Cryer.


Kilfedder, James





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, W.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Allason, Rupert
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amess, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Aspinwall, Jack
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Batiste, Spencer
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Beith, A. J.
Buck, Sir Antony


Bellingham, Henry
Budgen, Nicholas


Bellotti, David
Burt, Alistair


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Butcher, John






Butler, Chris
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Hayward, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howells, Geraint


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kennedy, Charles


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Durant, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Livsey, Richard


Franks, Cecil
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maude, Hon Francis


Gregory, Conal
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Hague, William
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Sir Charles





Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moss, Malcolm
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mudd, David
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Norris, Steve
Summerson, Hugo


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thornton, Malcolm


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Price, Sir David
Wallace, James


Raffan, Keith
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Rowe, Andrew
Wiggin, Jerry


Ryder, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilshire, David


Salmond, Alex
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to the said Order, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. COM(90) 121, relating to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1991. 8182/90 relating to the Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1991, and 9865/90 and the supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 30th November 1990, relating to the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the draft Budget.

Private Business

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That so much of the Lords Message [12 November] as relates to the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Shard Bridge Bill be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to have been called so early in the debate, although I suppose that it reflects the great concern that the Chair, like the Government and the Opposition, has had about the way in which the private Bills that we are debating have come before the House. I shall not rehearse again the variety of arguments that have been adduced in the past—[Interruption.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you would ask hon. Members who are engaged in conversation to come to order. We are concerned with important measures. I am trying to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is saying, and I would like to hear him in reasonable silence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for that helpful intervention, which I feel sure the whole House will take.

Mr. Bell: I will explain briefly why the revival motion on the four Bills with which we are concerned should not be approved. Hon. Members will know that my main concern is the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, although I am sure that other Opposition Members will speak about the other measures that we are debating. There are many reasons why the revival motion should be rejected, one of the main being that we have always argued that the use of the private Bill procedure in this way is a corruption of public Government policy. In other words, because the Government could not find time for the privatisation of the trust ports—because of their crowded programme involving public legislation—they have used the private Bill procedure.
Indeed, they advised the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to take the private Bill route. That advice was given by a former Secretary of State for Transport. the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I cannot recall how many Secretaries of State for Transport we have had since that right hon. Gentleman left office, but he originally asked the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to adopt the private Bill procedure and promised that it would be supported in the House. I have no doubt that, to ensure that the revival motion is approved, the payroll vote is hovering in the corridors and tea rooms waiting for the vote to be called.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport was honest when speaking at earlier stages of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. He accepted from the Dispatch Box that the Government did not have time for a public Bill, that a private Bill was the answer and that, for that reason alone, the private Bill route had been chosen. My hon. Friends and I have argued that that procedure is a corruption of our proceedings. Over the years we have seen that corruption entering our proceedings in a sinister way, permitting them to fit in with the Government's

programme. That happened with the Associated British Ports Act 1990 and it is happening with the Bills with which we are dealing today.
Such a procedure concerns us greatly, and that is why we are opposing the revival motion. Our opposition is based on our belief that the proceedings of this legislature are being corrupted by the Executive. We are confirmed in that belief by the passage in the recent Queen's Speech saying:
Legislation will be introduced to privately finance roads; to reform procedures for streetworks; to improve road traffic; to convert trust ports into private companies".
Tonight we are faced with a private Bill the purpose of which is to privatise a port, and the Government have given a legislative commitment in the Queen's Speech to privatise trust ports and convert them into private companies.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: How many trust ports are there, other than the Clyde port authority and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority?

Mr. Bell: I believe that throughout the country there are 36 trust ports. The Government will face the difficulty that when they try to privatise them, they will find that many of them do not have the assets that are available to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Like all the other ideological commitments of the Conservatives, when the Government discovered that the trust ports had massive assets—the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's assets total about £58 million—they started by wanting to take 50 per cent. of the assets, with a further percentage being taken by way of capital gains. That is why we must oppose the revival motion.
As I said, I shall not rehearse all the arguments that have been adduced at other stages. This is neither the time nor the place to do that, and while my hon. Friends and I do not cast any aspersions on the Chair, we suggest that the Select Committee on Procedure should examine how we can be debating on the Floor of the House a private Bill when we are faced with a Government commitment in the Queen's Speech to privatise all the trust ports in the land. Considering the way in which our proceedings are being corrupted, we are left hoping that when the new Conservative leadership settles down——

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend says that he will not go over the arguments that have been rehearsed before on this issue. He should not be too reticent about arguing the full case on what is, after all, a fresh motion. It would do no harm to re-state some of the arguments that he used in previous debates. As he said, an important innovation is the reference to the matter in the Queen's Speech. That is relevant to the motion in view of the important step that the Government propose to take through the private Bill procedure. There have been complaints about Government legislation being undertaken through the private Bill procedure. I thought when I read the Queen's Speech that the Government had heeded the representations that had been made repeatedly and at length by Opposition Members. I urge my hon. Friend to examine the issues involved tonight with great care.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is right. When I read the Queen's Speech, I thought that Opposition Members, and perhaps the Minister, had had some influence on the Government. The Minister has survived a variety of


changes in Government and in leadership. Perhaps he had a modest role in ensuring that the private Bill procedure would be set aside for an appropriate procedure.
When the subject was raised on 22 October 1990, I drew attention to the contradictions in the methods of floating the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Mr. Charles Wellington had consistently said that there would be no stock market flotation and that shares would be offered to local pension funds and to the local work force. Opposition Members pointed out that, as the dock labour scheme has been abolished, the work force, sadly, has been diminished. The skills and jobs of many workers who had devoted their lives to the docks have been lost.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill makes no provision for shares for workers. It was agreed in Committee that an appropriate amendment will be moved in the other place, but no figure has been given. The Act to privatise trust ports may contain more generous provisions than the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that in responding to that intervention, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will bear in mind the fact that we are dealing with a procedural motion. It would not be in order to go into detail on the merits of the Bills that are the subject of the motion.

Mr. Bell: I am trying to stay within the terms of the motion and to resist the blandishments of my hon. Friends to rehearse arguments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who sat on the Committee which considered the Bill, makes an important and valid point—that hon. Members have not been able to debate an amendment that was made in Committee because it goes directly to the other place.

Mr. Barnes: The point that I am making is that another measure will be brought before the House for the privatisation of trust ports generally. That could contain more generous provisions for workers' shares. That is why I thought that the point was relevant to our debate.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is in some difficulty, but I hope that it is temporary.

Mr. Barnes: He does not have a leg to stand on.

Mr. Bell: He has a leg to stand on, but that has nothing to do with his support for the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill.
Opposition Members have not received an answer to their question about shares for the work force. We have not received an answer to the contradiction in the statements made by Mr. Charles Wellington, the secretary of the authority, and Mr. Hackney, its chief executive, on what will happen to the shares. We cannot pass the motion until we have received answers to those questions.
The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is spending the community's money on a massive publicity campaign to persuade local people that privatisation is in the interests of the local community. That must have cost about

£750,000, and I am sure that it will be quaking in its shoes about the possibility of an early election being called and the privatisation being set aside.
We oppose the motion because we have not received answers to our questions. We argued that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has ample provision in its articles of association to invest locally. Since the Bill's First Reading, the authority has made a series of local investments not in the port but in property. That exercise was futile because under its articles of association it was entitled to make such investment. The private Bill was also a futile exercise. It was a gleam in the eyes of the chief executive and the secretary of the authority, to the detriment of port workers.
I briefly mentioned the possibility of shares being issued to the work force, which has radically altered and reduced as a consequence of the dock labour scheme being abolished. It is not for me to rehearse the arguments, but we have fallen victim of the ideology of the Government, who got rid of the dock labour scheme and who put skilled men on the dole and replaced them with less skilled workers.

Mr. Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have criticised this privatisation and the port levy. Is his opposition to the motion based on the belief that no form of privatisation of the port authority is acceptable, however much improved and however much revised it is?

Mr. Bell: The trust port principle goes back 200 years. Its purpose was to serve the local community and strengthen the local port. It is the third largest port in the country. The port authority has invested in aviation and property. We have consistently said that its powers are adequate not only for local investment—Nissan uses the port for its exports and imports-but for it to invest elsewhere in the country if that is what it wishes. We cannot see why there should be any privatisation of the port.

Mr. Richard Holt: I am sure that I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the City of London, that insufficient money can be raised from income obtained from dues. Money must be raised from the City to invest further and to develop properly, but the Tees and Hartlepool port is prevented from doing so. The only income—it is not allowed to borrow—is its daily income and revenue. That does not give it the scope to develop, as it will, and to bring economic well-being to the Teesside area.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will link his remarks to the motion before us.

Mr. Bell: I will ensure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I take your advice to stay on the subject of the motion and the reasons why the House should not vote for it. I do not wish to be led unduly down the path suggested by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. However, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall answer his question.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh has taken the argument of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and turned it round the other way. The authority has said until now that it wants the Bill to be enacted because it has cash of £25 million in the bank which it cannot spend because it cannot find ways of investing that money. The authority


did not need to go to the City of London and it did not need to raise capital on the capital market because it had its own cash mountain. The authority said that it could not invest its money elsewhere because that would be ultra vires. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is not with us tonight, proved beyond doubt on Second Reading that the authority had ample powers to enable it to invest, so the argument was spurious.
The real reason for the Bill is that the authority originally envisaged a glorified management buy-out. Those at the top of the tree in the authority saw reasons for that. If the debates have done anything, they have removed that concept. We have obliged the authority to expand its so-called "share ownership" to a wider group of people than it had thought necessary. The argument of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh is wrong and, until now, the authority has not put it forward.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether the practice of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is different from that of the Clyde port authority? I originally thought that there would be a public flotation along the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). After questioning, I realise that there will be no such flotation. The company is private and the members of the authority will decide who can buy the shares, so people can buy them only by invitation. There will be no question of seeking capital from the City of London; there will be a private invitation for people to have access to the shares. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what is happening?

Mr. Bell: To use an ancient metaphor, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The Tees and Hartlepool authority had £50 million of assets. Who would value the shares? Mr. Wellington, the secretary, said that a consortium would be set up to buy the port from a trust being formed on privatisation and that it would be a mixture of staff, of management, of local pension funds and of City institutions. He said that the authority would be advised by Rothschild financial advisers. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh wanted the City of London to be involved; it has already been involved through N. V. Rothschild. Later, Mr. Hackney, the chief executive, made it clear that there would be a flotation on the stock market two to three years later.
We are seeking to oppose the motion, yet we still do not know who the shareholders will be, how the shares will be dispensed, who the beneficiaries will be, how much will go to the work force and how much will end up in the City of London. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh seemed to confirm that there is a hidden agenda and that the Tees and Hartlepool authority will get into the hands of the City of London as quickly as it can. It seems that the authority will use the shares to raise money in the City and will then seek to increase its borrowing powers. Why anyone would want to borrow money when we have the Conservatives' high interest rates of 15 per cent., 16 per cent. and even, perhaps, 19 per cent., is beyond me. However, that is the scenario that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh has painted for us.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's ideology is not our driving force in this matter? Does my hon. Friend agree that we should welcome the motion if the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill was intended

simply to allow the trust ports extra powers to carry out their business as trust ports? As a result of the lack of certainty over the issue of shares, it is believed that the trust ports will be subject to a number of high charges. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said in a previous debate, the Government have seen the authority as a lucrative source. That is why we oppose the motion on which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has outlined his arguments in such relevant detail.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend referred to extra powers. The former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West told the Tees and Hartlepool port authority that he would not allow legislation to come to the House under which the authority could be given those extra powers. Indeed, he argued that the authority did not need them. He said—and it was all written down—that, as he would not allow such legislation, the authority would have to take the route of privatisation arid of the private Bill. That is why we have the motion today. The right hon. Gentleman implied that there would be a Government payroll vote to get a private Bill through the House. The payroll vote, which may have changed slightly over the past few days, is lurking in the corridors of power, waiting to spring when there is a vote on the motion so that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill can continue in the other place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has mentioned the variety of ways that the Government have discovered of taking money out of the trust ports. We debated that point when we discussed the Bill previously, so I will not repeat the arguments now. However, once the Government saw that there were assets of £50 million and that there had been grant money to the trust ports in the 1960s, they said in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will remember, that they would take 50 per cent. of those assets—£25 million—and would modify the Finance Bill to do so.
In addition, the Government said that, after the 50 per cent. had gone, 27·5 per cent. of the remainder would be taken in capital gains tax, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will remember. In that way, the £50 million of assets of the authority were reduced by some 63·75 per cent. The Government got their hands on more money for the Treasury, but it was, of course, to the detriment of the Tees and Hartlepool area and to those who had invested their lives on the quaysides and at the harbours. That is another reason why we oppose the motion.
The motion is an omnibus edition, which covers the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the Shard Bridge Bill and the London Underground (Victoria) Bill as well as the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. I have no comment to make on the first three Bills but have directed my attention to the fourth.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I presume that my hon. Friend's arguments on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill also apply to the Clyde Port Authority Bill, which proceeded ahead of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. Surely the argument that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill should not be passed because the Government intend to introduce enabling legislation applies equally to the Clyde Port Authority Bill.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friends will put the arguments on the Clyde Port Authority Bill later in the debate. One reason why we are opposed to the motion is that we do not have the answers to our earlier questions. We have shown clearly that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority had the power to create a host of jobs in construction, in transport, in leisure and in other industries. The motion is simply an extravaganza in the framework of the Government's overall policy. The Government are now contradicting themselves by their own public legislation. We have not had answers to any of our questions and, unless we persist in our opposition, we shall never get the answers. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East heard in Committee that commitments were made for the other place, but those are not of great assistance to us. We must concentrate on the motion tonight.
There has been an election for the leadership of the Conservative party. At least two of the candidates said that there should be a reform of parliamentary procedures. This Government have brought the private Bill procedure into severe disrepute by allowing the Associated British Ports Bill to take the private Bill route, and by doing the same for the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and for the Clyde Port Authority Bill. The sooner we revise our procedures, the better. We shall not then have to use the private Bill procedure to deal with matters that are properly the subject of pubic Bills. We shall not have to debate revival motions such as this, and the House will be a better place, introducing better legislation for the benefit of the public.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I shall intervene but briefly because the motion before us is strictly procedural and my object is therefore simply to advise the House of the Government's view. It is not uncommon for private Bills not to complete all their stages in one Session. I believe that the promoters of such Bills have the right to expect the House to reach a decision on the merits of their proposals and not to have them discounted because of a procedural hazard. The private Bill procedure allows for carry-over and revival motions. The fact that the motion stands in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means shows that he is satisfied that all is in order——

Mr. Worthington: May I ask the Minister about one of the factors that will influence my decision whether to vote for the revival motion? Will the trust ports Bill that the Government are to introduce differ in any way from the Clyde Port Authority Bill and the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill? The Government have changed direction and are to make time available for the privatisation of the trust ports. It is therefore right to ask whether the proposals in their Bill will be similar to those in the private Bills.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to discuss proposals that may come before the House at a later stage. The Government's Bill has not yet been published, so I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman a response. He must wait and see.

Mr. Harry Barnes: But there is a problem. We have been told all along that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill is a pioneering measure. Those who

promoted it argued to the Committee that they were at the forefront of developments and that their example would be followed by other trust ports. If the Bill is really a pioneering measure, it will presumably form the framework for the public Bill that is to be introduced.

Mr. McLoughlin: Our object tonight is to reach a decision on a procedural motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. What the House decides in future is a matter for the House. I cannot say whether the public Bill will go through all its stages; the House will have to decide, although I hope that the Bill will receive the support that it so richly deserves.

Dr. Godman: Clause 4(3) of the Clyde Port Authority Bill refers to the privatised company taking on board the obligations of the authority. Will a similar provision be included in the forthcoming public Bill? Will the responsibilities now carried out by the 30 or so trust ports appear in the public Bill? Will the private companies have to fulfil those responsibilities and honour those obligations?

Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman because we are not discussing what may be in a Bill that we may introduce in due course. The public Bill will go through its Second Reading, Committee and Report stages and the House will then be able to question its contents and the powers contained in it. I repeat that we are here tonight to discuss a procedural motion tabled by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I should perhaps remind the House that all four Bills were passed by this House before the end of the previous Session.

Mr. Worthington: The matter is most important to the Clyde port authority and, I am sure, to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Some Opposition Members are most concerned about the lack of safeguards. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to the powers of the port authorities. I am concerned about the lack of control in respect of the issue and sale of shares under the Clyde Port Authority Bill.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that any safeguards in the Bill that his Department is to introduce will apply to all the port authorities and that safeguards in respect of the ownership of shares will be written into the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Clyde Port Authority Bill? If they are not, the private Bills will be inferior to the public Bill.

Mr. McLoughlin: The private Bills have been through all their stages in the House of Commons. It is up to the House to reach a conclusion on the Bills before it. The hon. Gentleman is asking whether there will be retrospective legislation if a public Bill is passed. He must wait and see. I am not in a position to say one way or the other. I repeat that we must consider the procedural motion before us. If the Bills return from the other place with amendments, the House will have to consider them. That will be the appropriate time at which to discuss those matters.
In principle, the Bills are acceptable to the Department. The London Underground (Victoria) Bill, promoted by London Underground to enable essential safety work to be carried out at Victoria underground station to relieve congestion, has the Government's support. We therefore


support the revival motion. The promoters of the Bills are entitled to a decision based on the Bills' merits rather than having that decision frustrated by procedure. All the Bills are to go to the other place and it is quite right that they should be allowed to be considered further. If the Bills are passed in the other place, we shall have further opportunities to consider them on their merits.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Minister said that it was right for the Bills to go to the other place. The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill was introduced following a decision by three men representing the authority. The casting vote of the Chairman decided the matter. Is it right that such a Bill should go to the House of Lords when, as good parliamentarians, we know full well that, in the event of a tie on a serious matter such as this, custom has it that the Chairman should give his casting vote in favour of the status quo?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his attendance of our debates on the Bills and I have listened to his contributions with interest.

Mr. Leadbitter: But what is the answer?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, but he knows that a majority is a majority, whether it be a majority of one or a majority of 100.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am merely seeking clarification. The Minister has always responded with reasonable concern for the questioner. Do we really want to set a precedent when we know—as a matter not of opinion but of evidence—that the decision to privatise was made by three people, and only three, with the Chairman's vote cast in favour of the Bill. The normal practice in the House is for the Chairman to cast his vote in favour of the status quo. When I first became a Chairman, my inexperience led me to vote against the status quo. I got my knuckles rapped. Does the Minister now say that it is all right and that the matter can go to the other place? In fairness, is it not inevitable that the Bill will go to the other place? Surely it is against parliamentary practice for him to say that that is right.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is not a Government motion; it is a motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am merely expressing the Government's point of view. The Chairman of Ways and Means must have been satisfied that all was in order for him to come forward with such a motion. On the hon. Gentleman's wider point—it is a genuine point—about the unsatisfactory way in which trust ports work and operate, I agree with him. Present accountability is not perhaps what one would desire.
Last December,in one of the first Adjournment debates to which I replied, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and I discussed the old concept of trust ports. I said that, in some ways, accountability was not the most acceptable method. The hon. Gentleman pointed out all the problems in the current set-up of trust ports. hope that by following this route, trust ports will be free to do certain other things and also be more accountable. That is an important point. I am sometimes surprised by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). Although he attacks the Tees and Hartlepool port authority with some

vigour, he goes on to say what an excellent company it is and how well it is doing. We all share that view. We want it to be prosperous and successful.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I do not think that the Government can wash their hands of the affair, pass it to the Chairman of Ways and Means and say that it is in the House merely to recommend a technical measure to enable us to move forward. It has always been involved with the Tees and Hartlepool Bill. The measure was introduced so that 50 per cent. of finance would be transferred to the Treasury. If that had been written into the Tees and Hartlepool Bill, it would no longer have been a private Bill, it would have been a public Bill, and we should have found a way around it. At this stage matters have been superseded by other Government legislation. The Minister's Department initially encouraged Tees and Hartlepool to take exactly the line that it took to introduce the private measure. The Government are up to their neck in the provisions. They cannot simply say that the matter is technical—they must argue a political case in support.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not on this occasion, though. At the risk of tedious repetition, I remind the House that we are discussing a procedural motion. The four Bills have completed all their stages in the House of Commons, and we are considering the procedural motion relating to whether they should now be considered by the House of Lords. I fully acknowledge that there is a certain relevance to legislation that the Government may bring forward later. I understand that that can be an argument for or against the revival motion, but we cannot discuss the merits of the Bills on this occasion.

Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I meant was that, to support a procedural motion, there were political arguments about the right and wrongs of the case, which the Government needed to present to us to influence the situation. I grant that the decision that is then to be made is procedural and that procedural elements are important to it, but in backing up the procedural points, the matter is stretched further.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that point. I am being as helpful as I can to the House. As long as the arguments are for or against the revival motion, the debate will be in order.

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on what you said a couple of minutes ago. If the procedural motion is passed, where stand the rights of petitioners? If it is successful, will it mean that petitioners will be able to place petitions with the other place? Where are the rights of petitioners with regard to the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The rights of petitioners are not a matter for me, of course. The Bill has passed its stages in this House. If the motion is passed, the Bill will proceed to the Lords. The House of Lords has its own procedures for petitioning, and I have no authority to say what the procedures are in that regard.

Dr. Godman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the motion is passed, will petitioners have the right to put down petitions of objection to the Bill in the House of Commons?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. The procedure in this House on these Bills has been completed. All the stages have been gone through, so there are no further procedures other than the revival motion. Any further procedures will relate to the other place.

Mr. McLoughlin: It would be unfortunate not to agree to the motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I therefore urge the House to allow the Bills to be revived and to agree the motion. That would then allow full and proper consideration in the other place and for matters that may subsequently arise to be fully considered in the other place.

Ms. Joan Walley: I shall be brief, as many of my hon. Friends wish to make important points.
It is extraordinary that we are debating this revival motion. We are told by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport that it is not a Government motion and that he is present technically on behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means to assist further consideration of the four private Bills when our major concern in respect of each of the Bills should be some way of introducing an integrated transport system. Procedurally there is no way in which the thrust of the four Bills can achieve an integrated transport system. That point must be considered in conjunction with the procedural motion.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am not here in preference to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am here to point out the Government's position on the motion.

Ms. Walley: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, but it does not clarify the matter. It shows the confusion that there is about how to proceed with the four private Bills. It is a sharp practice. We have four private Bills, each of which should have a separate debate in its own right, which would give hon. Members an opportunity to vote on the issues involved in each of them. Of course, we shall not have an opportunity to do that. We may have one view on one private Bill and we may wish to see it proceed, but we may have valid reasons, as we have on port trusts, for thinking that it is not appropriate to proceed because of the arguments that have been well set out by my hon. Friends.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Lady will agree that there have been debates on those matters, individually and separately, as one would expect with any Bill.

Ms. Walley: I do not agree. A debate occurred in the previous Session, but we are in a changed situation. The Queen's Speech promised new legislation on the port trusts. We are simply trying to establish whether the issue is one of principle that should best be left until the whole House has an opportunity to discuss new initiatives which the Government will bring forward and which I hope will be part of an integrated transport system, or whether we shall make decisions about what is to happen to two port trusts, and make those decisions in the dark. Clearly, at this stage we do not know what is in the draft legislation that is is still to be published and to come before the House. For that very reason, Opposition Members are in great difficulty about deciding whether to accept the revival motion.
We have before us a consultation procedure from the Government on private Bills and new procedures. Whether or not a new Prime Minister has been elected, everybody agrees that there is a clear and urgent need to examine the private Bill procedure and the way in which we conduct business in the House. Perhaps we should have the generosity to say that there will be occasions that suggest that the present procedures need to be redesigned and re-thought.
We have consultation documents and Bills hanging over from the previous Session. It is proposed that they should now be brought forward into this Session, but the Government have not said how the new procedures will be introduced. If it is possible for the Government to spend all this time bringing back private Bills when we now have the primary legislation that we were promised, why has it not been possible for the Government to deal with the issue of the new procedures which are so urgently needed? Important issues are set out for our consideration, such as environment impact assessments, and need to be considered for each of the four private Bills.
There is a great hurry, which makes me suspicious. I am also suspicious about the reasons for tabling the revival motion, which is aimed at getting the two port trust Bills quickly through this Session.
We have not heard any answers from the Minister about the Government's intentions in the new legislation. We have not had any answers about workers' shares. None of our questions has been answered. Nor have we heard anything about responsibilities for navigation and conservation. When we considered water privatisation, environmental protection was a key issue. The Government had to bring back a second set of proposals setting out the need for a National Rivers Authority. The Government had to recognise that there should be some separation——

Mr. McLoughlin: That was always Government policy.

Ms. Walley: No, it was not always Government policy. The early drafts did not suggest that. However, it was clear that safeguards were needed if the Government were to introduce their proposals to separate the different functions of gamekeeper and poacher, about which we heard so much. We need to know whether the new legislation on the port trusts will set out the conservation functions and the way in which those functions will be taken over by whatever replaces the port trusts.
We have not had any answers about retrospective legislation. Clearly we do not want one set of proposals in respect of two ports and a completely different set of proposals for all the other ports. Without safeguards, it is difficult to see how we can proceed.
So far, we have not heard anything about the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, which had fairly widespread support. The safety proposals were supported by hon Members of all parties. However, we have not heard anything from the Government about whether, if there is to be great haste in getting that private Bill on to the statute book, the £3 billion that has already been announced by the Secretary of State for Transport will be used to finance the vital work that the Bill would enable to go ahead. Given the current cash crisis, we need some assurances from the Minister about whether that work can proceed if the Bill is timetabled and given Royal Assent.
Those are all important issues. We are faced with an omnibus of different revival motions. New legislation is to be introduced later. However, we have not had any proper answers from the Minister, and I do not see how it is possible to proceed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to comment on the possible reform of private Bill procedure, but as procedure has been mentioned, perhaps it would help the House if I were to explain briefly and in a little more detail what the motion actually means and what the House will be doing if it passes it tonight.
Such motions are customary and have been approved regularly in previous Sessions when it is sought to suspend or revive Bills which have been passed by the Commons and which are currently under consideration by the Lords. On 12 November this year, the Lords informed this House that they had passed a resolution that, if the Bills were brought from the Commons in the present Session, they should resume progress at the stage that they had reached at Prorogation. The present motion is therefore a necessary procedural courtesy which has the effect of returning the Bills to the Lords for further consideration. The motion means no more and no less than that.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that was a most eloquent observation on my earlier points of order.
To be honest,I was hoping that the promoter ic f the Clyde Port Authority Bill would be present to withdraw his Bill. However, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has been recalled to the first team in St. Andrew's house.
Taking on board what you said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to place on the record the fact that I am unhappy about the motion, first, because it is a matter of deep regret that we are proceeding with the motion, which deals with the Clyde Port Authority Bill, when, the forthcoming public legislation will presumably deal with the other 30-odd trust ports——

Mr. Worthington: There are more than that.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend suggests that there may be more. I am concerned that we may not give adequate protection to those employed by, say, the Clyde port authority if we pass the motion.

Mr. Bell: I should like to correct what I said earlier. When asked how many trust ports there are, off the top of my head I said that there are 30; I should have said that there are 52.

Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. His intervention emphasises my point that we are dealing here with two trust ports out of a total of 50-odd. It is a matter of deep regret that we are debating this revival motion——

Mr. Harry Barnes: We need to sort out the problem about the number of trust ports. I have with me a map that was submitted to the Committee that considered the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. Totting up the number of trust ports on the map, I come to a figure of 40, plus one in the Isle of Wight. Perhaps the total of 52

includes municipal ports, company ports, nationally owned ports and associate member ports. Unless there is another avenue, it looks as though the number is 40.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the number of trust ports.

Dr. Godman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall stick rigorously to your instructions.
As I have said, I am concerned about the forthcoming public legislation. However, I hope that I shall also be in order if I say that we have fresh evidence about the CPA Bill to employ in our case against the motion. I do not see why the two port authorities referred to in the motion should be excluded from the forthcoming public legislation. New evidence has appeared since the House completed its consideration of the CPA Bill. Numerous recent concerns and developments bear upon that Bill, but even now, we cannot debate them.
One important matter that was brought to my attention in Greenock just a few days ago is the fact that the ownership of properties and land in Greenock that is claimed by the CPA is now disputed by men and women who can only be described as decent and honourable—I refer to the members of the Greenock Waterfront Heritage Association, which asserts with considerable justification that various waterfront properties claimed by the CPA belonged to the people of Greenock by way of a feu signed in the 18th century.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand, deep concern is being expressed over the tragic collision that took place not far from my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham)—the foundering of the motor fishing vessel Antares, with the loss of its four-man crew. The sinking, brought about by the collision between the vessel's gear and a submerged Royal Navy nuclear submarine highlights a number of issues which impinge on the Clyde Port Authority Bill.
We should be in a position to discuss with the CPA changes in navigational routes and the conduct of vessels, particularly military ones, in and around the firth of Clyde. The CPA, as presently constituted, could play an important mediating role to prevent the recurrence of such a dreadful tragedy. Such a navigational role in the firth of Clyde and the River Clyde, and dredging in the upper reaches of the Clyde cannot be left' to a private company.
There are developments ashore that impinge on the motion. Therefore, it would be best for all involved if the motion were not passed so that, by way of public legislation, we could come afresh to a Bill dealing with CPA ownership to examine recent developments, including tragic ones such as the sinking of the Antares and economic developments taking place in our constituencies on the banks of the Clyde. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie outlined in an intervention, there is concern about the selling and acquisition of shares in the Clyde Port Authority plc. I fear that such shares may eventually be acquired by those living far away from the Clyde, with no interest in it and its communities.
There are sound arguments against the revival motion, particularly in light of recent developments. They include the fears over share ownership in Clyde Port Authority plc, the legitimate worries of members of Greenock


Waterfront Heritage Association and others of my constituents who have an affection for the CPA and a respect for its officials. That affection and respect does not prevent them from criticising those officials and managers from time to time. There is deep concern about what will happen to the Clyde port authority when it becomes a private authority.

Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend is aware of the terrible tragedy that happened some time ago when six of my constituents lost their lives aboard the Destiny. The Clyde port authority is an agency that we hope would put forward plans and policies involving safety on pleasure craft and other vessels using property owned by the Clyde port authority. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of my concern and that of my constituents. It would be nonsense for the Clyde port authority to be taken away.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend raised an important issue. He referred to the tragic sinking of the motor fishing vessel Destiny, days before Christmas 1989. The vessel was skippered by Billy Irving of Gourock, a member of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. My hon. Friend is right that, where safety regulations govern sea angling expeditions in boats owned by Clydesiders, the Clyde port authority may well have a role to play that is perhaps more important than that of the district council, which determine the safety regulations. My hon. Friend is right—the CPA could make a useful contribution to determining regulations governing excursions such as the one that ended in deep tragedy for the families of my hon. Friend's six constituents. The CPA, as a public authority, could play an important role, but will be prevented from doing so when it is privatised.
I cannot ask the Minister to withdraw the motion because as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly said, it is a procedural motion. However, if the Bill is revived and resuscitated in its current condition, that decision will be treated with deep dismay and serious concern in my constituency and elsewhere on the Clyde. I urge my hon. Friends to argue against the motion because the Bill to which it refers—to put it in as disinterested a way as I can—is simply not worth reviving in its present form.
A privatised Clyde port authority may prove to be, in numerous respects, a far more efficient organisation than the present authority as a generator of employment in new and revitalised traditional industry. The CAP, as structured at present, is the best sort of organisation for the communities I represent in the towns of Greenock and Port Glasgow to deal with developments ashore and changes which may come about in the navigational channels in and around the firth of Clyde.
We are entering what is popularly called a post cold war era. To control vast submarines in the fishing grounds in and around the firth of Clyde, the Clyde port authority with its highly competent managers has a role to play: to separate fishing vessels and the submarines. I am not sure whether the Department of Transport can do that, with all due respect to the Minister and his colleagues. The job should be done by a locally based authority that enjoys the respect and trust of Clydeside communities——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it very difficult to link the hon. Gentleman's arguments to the revival motion.

Dr. Godman: I do not want to take advantage of your good nature and courtesy, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The revival motion is a bad idea because legislation is to come for all the trust ports. This motion has come at a bad time and I am only sorry that I am not in a position to appeal to the sponsor of the Bill, asking him to withdraw it so that we can deal with the matter in a more sensible and tough-minded way. We could do that when discussing a Bill covering all the trust ports.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, members of a private Bill Committee must sign a declaration to the effect that they have no connection with or constitutional interest in the area covered by the Bill. That was done in the Committee discussing the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill but we now discover that that Bill has been influential in shaping the public Bill for port privatisation.
Two hon. Members who served on the private Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) represent constituencies in which there are trust ports——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This sounds to me more like a matter that could be discussed on the debate on the revival motion. I cannot see that there is a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Barnes: The normal procedures for the House for dealing with work in Committee have been tampered with, as a result of which the Government are to supersede the Tees and Hartlepool legislation with an omnibus Bill covering all the trust ports. The two hon. Members whom I have mentioned could fairly claim that trade in their areas was not affected by the Tees and Hartlepool measure but they certainly will be affected by the general Bill—and that has a bearing on whether Opposition Members will support the measure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair but if the hon. Gentleman, with his well known ingenuity, catches the eye of the Chair he may be able to make these points during the debate.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The ruling on revival motions place the House in a straitjacket. Hon. Members who want to put forward their views, which are important to their constituencies and to the economy of their areas, must try not to displease the Chair and must set out to humour its occupant so as to earn a degree of flexibility. The House is at its best when we seek to comply with Standing Orders and the rulings of the Chair.
Bills of this sort are given a Second Reading, when we can argue more widely about the general principles of the Bill. Then, when the patience of the House has been fully exploited, we have a Standing Committee—in this case a private Bill hearing—after which the Bill returns to the House and hon. Members are obliged to hold a different sort of debate, as we did but recently when we discussed our worries based on the evidence brought to the Committee.
Now we must draw on the bank of knowledge of the Bill that has accumulated over a full year since the Bill was deposited on 27 November last year. We seek how best to adduce legitimate and salient arguments, linked directly or indirectly with the strictures governing the revival motion debate.
The paramount reason why we should not return the Bill to the House of Lords is simple and it should appeal to the prudence of the Government. As the Government have enabling legislation to privatise the trust ports on level terms, why should not those level terms apply to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, which runs the third largest port in the United Kingdom? Moreover, a great deal of money has already been spent on this private Bill. As the objectives of the Government and of the port authority are the same—they both want privatisation ——

Mr. Don Dixon: The directors of the port authority.

Mr. Leadbitter: Indeed, the Government and the directors want the same thing. So why cannot we co-operate and save money by so doing?
A further reason for not returning the Bill to the Lords has to do with Government policy. The Tees and Hartlepool port authority has already spent almost £1 million on the Bill and the petitioners who are against it have already spent £160,000. In order to petition if the Bill goes to the Lords, thousands of pounds more will have to be spent. When the promoters deposited the Bill on 27 November last year, they knew that enabling legislation was coming before the House. Much money has already been spent, and prudence suggests that we should now save some.
The Minister may say that the outstanding idea of returning the Bill to the Lords is not a matter for him because it is a private Bill. In a letter that I received from the management of the Clyde port authority I learnt that which the Tees and Hartlepool port authority was not prepared to tell us, that the Clyde port authority was complying with the wishes of the Government. ii shall come later to the subterfuge. That authority shared the Government's thoughts on privatisation and the Government were actively promoting, aiding and abetting in the introduction of that Bill to the House, as was the case with the Tees and Hartlepool Bill.
The Minister could say that I am correct. The ports will be included in the Government's enabling measures in January and because the new Prime Minister may want to take the temperature of the electoral waters sooner than we think, it makes good sense for the Government to concern themselves with saving public money. They should consider ratepayers and taxpayers for a change. They could say, "As it is inevitable that the ports will be privatised, we should take away this tiddleywink Bill."
I am sure that the Minister saw some substance in my intervention and his assertion that the Bill had a night to go to the Lords was not exactly unchallenged. Perhaps he thought that I had something up my sleeve when I said that the Bill may go to the Lords on the vote of one out of 650 hon. Members—that is, the Chairman of the Private Bill Committee. When there is a changeover in the Chair, I do not like to have any misunderstandings. So that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may be put in the picture about the argument that I am patiently developing——

Madam Deputy Chairman (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have been listening outside.

Mr. Leadbitter: That shows that you are a good Chairman, because even when you are not in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are courteous enough to find out what is happening. I was talking about one vote. As long-serving Chairmen, Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that none of us dares use our casting vote in Committee except to maintain the status quo.

Mr. Harry Barnes: A further point relevant to my earlier point of order arises about the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). That constituency has in it Cowes trust port. By the exercise of his casting vote, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight involved himself in a scenario that pioneered the development of trust port privatisation through Tees and Hartlepool and led to other measures that affected his own trust port. Therefore, he contravened the provisions of a document that he had signed, which said that he had no interest in the measures that the Committee was discussing. It would at least have been prudent for the hon. Member for Isle of Wight not persistently to exercise his casting vote.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend may deal later much more succinctly and in detail with the theme that he introduced. I fully agree with him on that important matter.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to another aspect of the Bill. It pertains to why he should pass on the Bill to the Lords, which is what we are here to discuss. "Erskine May" lays down quite clearly that the members of a private Bill Committee should act in a judicial manner. That is quite different from a member of any other Committee who may have to apply opinion and political argument. My attention has reluctantly been drawn to the fallibilities of the legal profession, and I have had to check carefully to see whether I, with my small and rather limited experience in the House, have hit on a matter about which the House should be concerned. The Minister is no doubt wondering what I am about to say.
I have spoken about the money spent by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Everybody has accepted that. I said that it had spent almost £1 million, and when an hon. Member mentions a figure in the House we have to ask ourselves how he arrived at the amount and what are its components. About £500,000 was spent on advertising the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and that pre-empted the decision of the House. None of us is allowed to do that. We cannot act or speak outside on the assumption that the House will agree with us. It is the other way round because the House decides and we have to accept its decision. As I say, the promoters of the Bill spent £500,000 on a national advertising campaign, and the Chairman and members of the Committee must have read the statements in those advertisements. The beneficial effect of the judicial isolation of the Committee was breached.
That is not the only unfortunate aspect. So stupid is the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, so abrasive is its attitude, so completely ignorant is it of its pledge of support for the area, that it employed a London agency to do the job. The local area did not get the benefit of the £500,000.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Was not the amount spent entirely unreasonable, and is not the fact that it was spent outside the area a sign of the way things will go if the Bill is passed? The money will be spent on horizontal integration rather than on helping the local area.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend is right. However, I want to link this factor with the motion.
For reasons that I shall not go into, if the Bill were to go to the Lords, our petitioning against it would not be so strong. However, that money spent in the south underlines what the chief executive of the port authority said in his evidence. The parliamentary counsel asked him whether his private enterprise philosophy was contradictory to the purposes of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966, and he said, "That's why we've got the Bill."
Another reason why the Bill should not go to the House of Lords is that we should be satisfied before we let it go that things are being done in the best interests of the authority. When giving evidence, Mr. Hackney made it abundantly clear in reply to questions put to him by counsel that the constitution of the authority, under the 1966 Act, was adequate for all the purposes of the port. Apart from section 12(1), nothing in the Act makes it impossible for the port authority to invest as it wishes. For instance, it already has shares and investments in a wide range of non-port undertakings.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) challenged me. Unfortunately, he has been kicked in the leg, or threatened with reselection, or has had a seizure, so he is not here. We do not know why he is not here, but as we are concerned with each other's health, I shall be asking about his welfare. I know that things are hard for the Conservative party. He may feel that the time has come for retirement and is practising for that.
I must apologise to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. I was challenged by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who is also not here. A fit man does not come here, when a lame man has. He asked whether it was possible for a trust port to have shares in a Government agency. I thought that perhaps I should check on that, and the documents show that it is the other way.
The fanciful thing is that I object to the Bill going to the Lords because, apart from one or two hon. Members, of whom I am one, nobody has a clear understanding of it. If I am the only possessor of that knowledge, other hon. Members should be concerned about sending the Bill to the Lords. On Second Reading, I did not want to give hon. Members a tutorial on the finances of the authority because I had more important things to say about the Bill, but I can give a simple answer now.
The Tees and Hartlepool port authority and the Cleveland development corporation got together and wondered how to make legitimate the investment that they were discussing. The Clevement development corporation could not invest in a Government agency, so it set up a company, the Hartlepool Renaissance Company. Because it is a separate company, although with the same personnel, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority was able to give it shares to the value of the land on which the marina was being built. That is known as a convertible share arrangement. That is possibly one of the more sensible things that the authority has done.
We should be concerned not only about letting the Lords have this Bill, but about making it more widely known among hon. Members who will vote on the motion

tonight that in Committee the evidence showed that the port authority, which is wanting to spread its wings and speculate on investment schemes throughout the world, has a poor record on investment. It has touched nothing that marks it out as an expert in finance, high investment or entrepreneurial ventures. It has played with tiddlywinks and lost its money but claimed that it went on a rescue operation. It has no backing to support its dreams of economic voyaging around the world. Indeed, counsel referred to it as having dreams——

Mr. Worthington: Are the provisions in the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill similar to those in the Clyde Port Authority Bill, in that the members of the authority—about whom my hon. Friend has spoken scathingly—can become dominant members of the privatised company? Is there an open way in which other people can become the dominant members of that company?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has done so well, so far, in keeping to the revival motion. He is wise enough to know that he must not go down the road suggested by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).

Mr. Leadbitter: Perhaps I will follow my hon. Friend's remarks, so I must work out how to weave that into the procedural requirements. If I succeed, I shall be congratulated; if I do not, I shall be shot down. Either way, it will be quite a thrill coming from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to weave it in, but not in a naughty way.
I have already given good reasons why the Bill should not go to another place—for example, the use of the Chairman's casting vote, the powers that already exist under present legislation, and the judicial responses of members of the Committee, who had been subject to a £500,000 national publicity campaign that they could not avoid seeing. There is another reason, which is both intriguing and fascinating. Surely it is not the will of the House, or of any hon. Member, freely to give a windfall to a handful of people. The only way that that could happen would be if the payroll vote were told not to take any notice of people like me, and to vote in a particular way.
Under the Bill, the proposed structure will mean that control of the holding company will fall into the hands of a consortium, which was not named or identified in any way during evidence to the Committee. However, we know that the largest shareholding will have control. I come now to the intriguing aspect. When the sale takes place, the Government will take 50 per cent. of the proceeds, and 50 per cent. will remain. Let us say that 50 per cent. is in the bank. The consortium than takes control and so takes back that 50 per cent., and it also has the port—what a rip-off! I have done it, Madam Deputy Speaker. You told me not to discuss that unless I could keep within our procedure. I found a way to do that, so I should be congratulated.
The House should not allow the Bill to go to another place, because of the reasons that I have given. I have explained what is happening, and that cannot be rebutted. Mr. Hackney agreed that that was happening. A group of people will get control. They have paid for that through the shares, but they will get back their money because they


will have 50 per cent. of the sale proceeds, and they will have the port as well. In my language, that is highway robbery.

Mr. Harry Barnes: In Committee, Mr. Hackney accepted the term "double your money". They will get the money and the port.

Mr. Leadbitter: Hon. Members might be persuaded to vote against the motion if they but knew about certain actions during the month of October. It was a month of letters, press releases and general hanky-panky by the port authority. Hon. Members might be surprised to learn that I received a letter from the authority's secretary, and it was that letter which caused me to feel so strongly that we should not allow the Bill to go to another place. It was the most downright disgraceful, ill-tempered, ill-advised and imprudent letter that I have received in 43 years of public life. I contacted the authority's chief executive, but he said that he knew nothing about it. He spoke to the secretary and he also looked at copies of the correspondence. Within half an hour, he told me that he was not prepared to accept that sort of language from the secretary, that the letter would be withdrawn, and that I would receive the necessary apologies. That shows that not only are the procedural requirements of the House important, but they must not be impinged upon by conduct which motivates people to go in one direction or another.
Because of the courtesy of the chief executive, I gave an undertaking that I would not reveal what was in the letter and I am keeping faith with that, but the House should be aware of the kind of treatment I received for taking part in an important debate on an important issue.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is noble in giving a commitment not to reveal the contents of that letter. As a distinguished Member of Parliament, who serves on the Chairmen's panel, does he think that there was a breach of parliamentary privilege in a letter being written to a Member of Parliament about comments made in the House? Is not Mr. Wellington, the secretary of the port authority, fortunate not to have been called to the Bar of the House to explain his conduct?

Mr. Leadbitter: I thought seriously about that at the time. I have a certain weakness—I do not know how I came to have it—but although I can hit hard, I find that when I have my opponent in a corner I feel some compassion. The Chair gave me the freedom to relate that story, and I think that the House had the right to hear it. However, as I told the chief executive of the authority, I accept that the authority's secretary must know his job. Therefore, the letter must have been written in what I would call a state of unfortunate exuberance. In other words, I was far kinder to him that he was to me.
I referred to October as being the month of letters and press releases. Unfortunately, there is another reason why the Bill should not go to the other place. Those letters and press releases represent—in writing—lying, deceiving, practically the worst form of blackmail and obnoxious manners that should not be tolerated by people charged with the responsibility of dealing with serious public affairs. There must be certain standards.
The vote of hon. Members tonight is important. The Bill has taken a year to reach this stage and we now come to the final fence. It is important the House should consider that final hurdle. Yet Hartlepool borough council

and Cleveland county council received a letter dated 26 October making it clear that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority would let the planning committee of those two authorities have land in order to build a carriageway from the Middleton pier in Hartlepool to the dual carriageway.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will come back to the procedural motion.

Mr. Leadbitter: I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members knew of that suggestion they just might, on balance, vote against the Bill tonight. That letter laid down a condition. The petitioners, an interested body of people, said that they would let the local authorities have the land on the condition that they withdrew their opposition to the Bill. How is that as a way of dealing with public affairs? That offended both councils who then got in touch with the Member of Parliament dealing with the opposition to the Bill to express their concern at being forced to do something by the promise of land being conditional upon their withdrawing their opposition.
That is hypocritical, because I have already related how the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has shares in the marina and so is of that development. It is in its own interests to have the linkage and yet it tells the two local authorities that it will be hard. I have got news for it. I have just informed the authorities that since it is in the interests of the marine development to have the road link, it must forget about being a hard seller, it is an anxious seller and must offer the least price that it can get away with.
How the Bill could have been a public Bill if the 50 per cent. levy had been written into it has already been dealt with. In other words, the Bill would not be a private Bill. It would not exist. It would have to come with the enabling legislation. The interesting thing is that the port authority has made it known that it won 50 per cent. of the proceeds. That is the first time we have ever learnt from serious men that if someone take away 50 per cent. what is left is a gain. That is nonsense. It is not true because, in evidence to the Committee, the council made it clear that that 50 per cent. was not even known to the authority when it deposited the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, to use his own words, is now being naughty, although he promised that he would not be. He has been ingenious in debating the revival motion and I am sure that he will now stay with the procedure and not with the subject matter.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Chair will be concerned with our reasons for opposing the revival motion and, I hope, with nothing else. I appreciate that I must not deviate from the main stream of your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know how long I could pursue that theme without being caught.
I turn now to what is known as the essential principle of the Bill. It must be approached with care, because there is some misconception about the nature of the Bill itself. The promoters submit that the result will be a free and independent port—no more, no less. However, the council might with ease gain from the promoter of the Bill—in the guise of the chief executive, Mr. Hackney—an admission that the purpose of the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority Act 1966, which followed the Rochdale report, was to achieve a port which was independent, autonomous


and financially self-supporting. Therefore, the claim that the new Bill will confer freedom and independence on the port cannot be true.
If the Bill before the House is enacted, the port authority will disband and reform as a trust. It will then create a holding company, but the port itself will be a subsidiary. The port authority will cease to be independent, autonomous, and self-financing. We argue that the Bill should not go to another place because it would be doing so under false pretences.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member intends to continue speaking—there is no reason why he should not—I trust that he will not deploy arguments relating to the purpose of the Bill. With his long-standing experience as a parliamentarian, the hon. Member will be familiar with the limits of a procedural motion. He said that he was at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Deputy Speaker who immediately preceded you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, read a ruling, which I confirmed by scanning "Erskine May". I discovered that we were both correct in our interpretation of the wording. The Chair rules that debate must be confined to the revival motion—and, as I agree, there is no conflict between us so far. However, I have tried very hard, and somewhat ingeniously, to argue why the Bill should not go to another place. Hon. Members such as I who behave with cultivated innocence should attempt not to be repetitious. That is a bonus that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have enjoyed as a consequence of the persuasion that you have employed. I, at least, have not been repetitious.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been repetitious in that he has repeated Second Reading arguments.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is right—and the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do that, because we are in the business of seeking support, which is the function of an Opposition. We must seek support not only from the Conservative Benches, but from the Chair.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned the group that had been involved in setting up a project in Hartlepool. Perhaps that project is similar to one involving the Clyde port authority which is trying to develop the Braehead site. This strikes me as jumping the gun—as retrospective legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving into areas that I have just forbidden.

Mr. Leadbitter: Diplomacy must operate here—I cannot demonstrate outwardly that I agree with my hon. Friend, because I do not wish to offend the Chair, but I do not want to comply with the Chair to such an extent as to offend my hon. Friend. In the circumstances, I may have to escape the consequences by sitting down.
In the light of the weaknesses of the Bill, the House must make a real attempt not to let it proceed to the Lords. The House must, in such circumstances, always be satisfied that the evidence is so overwhelming that it is unreasonable to stop the progress of a measure. Is the House satisfied that that is the case? If hon. Member

sallow the Bill to proceed to the House of Lords today, they will be ignoring the fact that the promoters did not produce one expert witness in the Committee hearings. Does the House intend to allow the Bill to proceed today, knowing full well—this is not merely the due of the hon. Member for Hartlepool—that in Committee the port authority chairman was given statutory authority by the Secretary of State to communicate with him on all matters of importance regarding the port? Yet the chairman himself did not make a single appearance before the Committee.
The position is certainly rather odd. It is clear that, under the present legislation, the port is independent, autonomous and financially self-supporting. It is also important to note that all its activities are for the port, within the port, and that it is free to invest. The corollary, however, is that although its welfare and interests are matters solely for the port, the Bill places it in a secondary position in, as it were, a "group" concept. It appears that the House must now allow the Bill to proceed without taking that into account. I have emphasised the desirability of establishing a subsidiary company, with the new authority as a holding company, but under the Bill the priorities of the port will become secondary to the targeting of investment bringing short-term high-profitability returns, as opposed to long-term, low-return investments in the port itself.
That is why, as we see from page 1 of the report of the sixth hearing of evidence to the Committee, counsel for the promoters said that the condition in section 12(1) of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966 about keeping the port safe and commodious—as it was before the passing of earlier legislation—was a constraint on the port authority. If it is a constraint on the port authority, then before the Bill be sent to the other place we must heed the clear message that money will not be spent on it.
Meanwhile, container investment in the authority is non-existent, although to enable it to compete with other ports, taking account of proposed installations, would require expenditure of between £60 million and £80 million. In other words, the £20 million now in reserve could be a first step to meeting the competition that will arise from 1992——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, and any other hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye, that the House earlier passed the Bill to the other place. Tonight we are determining whether to pass the procedural motion.

Mr. Leadbitter: I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to halt that motion and stop the measure going to the other place.
It should be clear from what I have said and from the deliberations in Committee that only a handful of people—fewer than five—were instrumental in allowing the Bill to continue on its journey. But I fear that the House has not heeded the warnings given by my hon. Friends and me, even though an enabling measure could have done the job for free. From that point of view, we are witnessing idiocy and imprudence at its peak. The port authority consulted nobody, not even the county, until the Bill was deposited. I have been associated with the port for more than 25 years. I was a chief policy witness prior to the earlier


legislation being passed. Despite that, and despite all the knowledge of the issue that I possess, I received not one offer of consultation from the authority.
I feel extremely strongly for the people whom I represent. I know their real worth and I am well aware of the magnificence of the work force and of managements throughout the northern region. I would be foolish to lose any opportunity—because I have been so disappointed with the authority—to voice my views. Having done so, I now say to the authority, as I would say to any other authority, that if the Bill has the misfortune to become law, I shall try to make it work.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Our concern tonight is simply whether to breathe life into the Bill and thereby revive it. In considering that, we must take note of certain incidents that should make us think again about the whole issue.
We have been misled, wittingly or unwittingly, about the Clyde Port Authority Bill and the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. Indeed, the Clyde port authority was misled, having been told by the Government that the only way it could he privatised was by promoting private legislation. I assume that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority received the same advice.
We were shocked to discover in the Queen's Speech a proposal to privatise all the trust ports. It would be foolhardy to privatise two trust ports when a Government Bill will privatise the other trust ports. We have no knowledge of the contents of that Bill, and the Minister may not know under what terms the other trust ports will be privatised.
The interests of the Government in promoting a Bill to privatise the trust ports are different from the interests of a port authority in promoting a private Bill. That was made clear in proceedings on the port authority Bills. The Government suddenly realised that, under the private Bills, a group of people who had not put a penny into the trust ports would be able to decide the future ownership of those ports and considerably influence who benefited from it. They realised that that would not be in order and belatedly said, "We shall impose a 50 per cent. levy," to ensure that they received some of the proceedings of the sale.
We are considering the motion only because the Clyde and Tees and Hartlepool port authorities have moved quicker than other trust ports. It will be interesting to see whether the Government accept the terms of the port authority Bills. It would be extraordinary if they accepted the same propositions as the port authorities. A number of people were appointed to the port authorities to be custodians of the public interest for a limited period—for example, as the chair of the Clyde port authority on a salary of £10,000 a year or as a port authority member on a salary of £3,500 a year—but under the private Bills they will be able to decide how the future wealth of the authorities is distributed. I am not implying that they will benefit from the distribution of wealth, but they will be able to decide who benefits from that distribution.

Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman know who is in that position at present, and is it not true that those who run the authorities can award themselves whatever salaries

they like and no one has any control over that? Once the port authority is a public limited company, shareholders and others will not have that stricture.

Mr. Worthington: That is a helpful intervention, because it shows that we have considered the port authority Bills completely the wrong way round. There would be general agreement among hon. Members that the structure of port authorities is thoroughly inadequate because there is no accountability. There is a strange procedure in Scotland whereby the Department of Transport—God love it—and not the Secretary of State for Scotland, appoints the members of the trust authority. There seems no logic in the fact that a remote, London-based body plucks out 10 or a dozen people to run the port authority. Does that body exercise any scrutiny over the activities of the port authority? No, it does not.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport and received a reply from the Ministesr in which he said that there was no monitoring of the work of the port authority. In other words, we take no interest in whether it does a good or a bad job. The authorities are simply appointed and they get on with the work. There is no scrutiny of or interest in how they fulfil the task, so we have no idea whether the Tees and Hartlepool port authority or the Clyde port authority is efficient. Neither the Government nor anyone else asks whether the authorities do a good job.
Is there a need for legislation? It seems that the present structure of the port authorities is inefficient, and I suspect that the Minister agrees. A proper analysis of the way in which the port authorities have developed should have been carried out to obtain an appraisal of what was going right and what was going wrong. I believe that the Clyde port authority could have been massively improved. I also believe that it was unacceptable that the authority was neither a democratic nor a private body. It was not accountable to anyone, which led to the incredible statement by the director of the authority, which is engraved on my mind for ever, that
above the Clyde port authority there is God.
That is strangely pompous, but it is also strangely true. Nobody can call the Clyde port authority to account. It could perform its task efficiently or inefficiently year in and year out.
One would have thought that the first action of a responsible Government who were confronted either with their own legislation or with private legislation would have been to appraise whether the present structure was working correctly.

Mr. Holt: If the trust ports were such an eyesore, why did no Labour Government have the courage to do anything about them?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) will deal with the motion.

Mr. Worthington: I am grateful both to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), whose intervention is relevant in considering whether to breathe life into the Clyde Port Authority Bill and into the others. I did not say that the port authorities were an eyesore, although a major eyesore in my constituency is under the control of the Clyde port authority. I was saying that no hon. Member has ever


carried out research into how the port authorities work and into whether they are working efficiently or inefficiently.
The contentious issue is whether the authorities powers are restricted so that they cannot undertake activities that would make them efficient. That has never been appraised by anyone except the ports authorities, which have a vested interest.
This is a fundamentally inadequate way to proceed with legislation. During the passage of the Clyde Port Authority Bill, there has been no analysis of whether we need legislation or what form of legislation we need. It will be sad for hon. Members who represent constituencies in the area of the Clyde port authority and of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to know that a far better analysis of the role of the other trust ports will be undertaken through the presentation of a public Bill. Ministers will come to the House having been fully briefed by the Department of Transport, and they will be able to argue their case properly.
With the Clyde Port Authority Bill, we did not have those advantages. We had a private Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has shown the extent of his interest in the Bill by his absence tonight.[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Langbaurgh wish to intervene?

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman is attacking a man who has been made a Minister and who cannot be here for that reason. That is most unparliamentary.

Mr. Worthington: It so happens that the hon. Member for Eastwood has been made the Minister responsible for industry and employment in Scotland and the Bill is of significance to the development of Scotland. That the hon. Gentleman should have taken his interest in promoting the Bill outside the House and put other interests—

Mr. Holt: Cheap.

Mr. Worthington: All right: I shall not withdraw my remarks, because I think they are justified, but I shall take the House back to the Second Reading debate which took place while the hon. Gentleman was but a Back Bencher.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Second Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we are debating a revival motion, and I should like to hear arguments about whether the Bill should be passed to another place.

Mr. Worthington: I do not think that the Bill should be revived, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the House has never had the opportunity—on Second Reading, tonight or at any other stage—to consider its merits. The sponsor of the Bill, who now happens to be a Minister—I hope that he will prepare himself better in his new job—came to the House without knowing anything about the Bill and could not answer any of our questions. One of the central questions on the Bill, to which we really ought to be given an answer, concerns the identity of those who will be able to control the port authority in future.
Just to show the confusion that there was on Second Reading—a confusion which persists tonight—let me remind the House that, at that time, the sponsor of the Bill

was talking in terms of the flotation of a public company. Only at a later stage did we find that the authority was to be floated not as a public but as a private company.

Mr. Bell: Is it not a fact that Mr. John Hackney has not been able to reconcile himself with Mr. Charles Wellington, the chief of Hartlepool, and that we do not know whether there will be a stock market flotation or not?

Mr. Worthington: My hon. Friend confirms the lack of certainty about who will be able to control the company in future. I have heard from the authority that some of the shares will go to the work force. We do not know what proportion it will be, although Opposition Members accept that there should be some employee share ownership. We do not know who else will control the company in future. We have heard only that some of the shares are likely to go to local institutions and organisations. As a local institution myself, I fully intend to apply for shares. I shall write to the company and say, "As a local institution—the MP for Clydebank and Milngavie—I should like shares in the Clyde port authority." I hasten to say to my hon. Friends that I have no intention of profiting from the shares: any profit will be given to local charities.
I shall be interested to hear the authority's response when I write to it to say that, out of interest in the future of the port and the river, I should like to be on the inside of the company. I wonder whether I shall be given the chance. Some of my hon. Friends may also wish to buy shares, although I shall not tonight commit them to doing so.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Whatever the share arrangement, we have some indication of what has been ruled out. On the Tees and Hartlepool Bill, on the Chairman's casting vote, the proposal that 50 per cent. of voting shares should go to the workers was defeated. Also, a proposal that the majority of the shares should go to the employees' pension fund and port users combined was defeated.

Mr. Worthington: That is why we should not breathe life into the Bill. What rules are the Bills setting up for the distribution of shares? We know nothing, and have been told nothing, about that basic issue. It would be a dereliction of duty to let the Bills go any further without clarification of that issue. I hope that that issue will be directly addressed in the Government's Bill.
With a normal privatisation, the Government lay down the terms under which the privatisation is to occur. They will say, for example, as they did with the electricity privatisation, "We are issuing shares at so much per share." Everybody gets a chance to bid for the shares. But that has not happened in this case. With the Government's Bill, it will be interesting to see whether they give fair access to the purchase of shares for any of the other trust ports or whether they will give privileged access to those who are already on the inside because they are members of the port authority.
Another major issue which has never been fully explored, and which is another reason why we should not breathe life into the Bill or revive it, is the valuation of the company's assets. The port authority has to set up the conditions in which the Clyde port authority will be sold to an institution. It must decide how it will realise the assets that I previously thought were public assets, but


apparently it is a difficult situation, in which there is no real owner, and something that I thought was public is to be turned into a private asset.
To sell off the assets of the port authority, they must first be valued by the port authority. Therefore, a firm, which I hope will be independent, will have to be hired to decide what value to put on the assets of the port authority. There may be talk of that firm being independent. However, if I wish to sell a property and I hire someone to value it for me, the valuer will assess that property on my behalf knowing that I am the seller of the property. Obviously, his duty is to me—I have hired him. His duty is to put the maximum possible value on the property. If I wish to buy property, I will hire professional advice from someone who will tell me the cheapest price for which I could get the assets and the lowest price that I should bid for them.
Under the Bill, the buyer and the seller are the same body. The Clyde port authority is liquidating itself, seeking to sell its assets and setting up a new company. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) eloquently said, initially the only members of the new company will be the Clyde port authority board members, because they will have liquidated themselves as a port authority and reconstituted themselves as the new trust and then as the new company. Who is to carry out a valuation when the buyer and the seller are the same? That issue has never been explored in the House, but it is another reason why we should hesitate to breathe life into these Bills. The issues have never been fully explained.
Other issues did not receive an airing until my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke earlier. We are also talking about navigation rights, not simply about property on the banks of the river. We are talking about the maintenance of good conditions for sailing up and down, not only the Clyde, but as far as halfway down Arran and all the surrounding sea lochs. We are talking about the public good. My hon. Friend reminded us of the recent tragic accident caused by submarines using the same channel as fishing boats. Clearly the public good must be at the forefront of our minds.
There are many other important issues. We have not even mentioned dredging tonight because we did not want to go back over the Second Reading debate. However, we have given abundant reasons why it would be prudent for the House not to breathe life into these Bills. I hope that the forthcoming public Bill will deal with these issues much more sensibly and will have the public interest more at heart, and that we shall not proceed with these private Bills.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It has been said that this is only a procedural motion, with the implication that it is therefore of less significance than the substantive issues. However, as trade unionists among my hon. Friends know, procedural agreements can often be more important than substantive agreements. Sometimes in trade union negotiations on wages, an employer will try to give a good substantive agreement, but part of the terms include selling out the procedural arrangements. Therefore, procedure is important because it is by that process that legislation proceeds.
Hon. Members have referred only briefly to the fact that the motion deals with a number of other Bills apart from the port authority Bills. The motion refers also to the London Underground (Victoria) Bill and to the Shard Bridge Bill. Those may well be reasonable and honourable Bills, and they may well deserve to proceed—I do not know, because I have not investigated them and I have not read the Committee reports. Furthermore, I have heard nothing today to tell me why those two Bills, together with the port authority Bills, should proceed. It would have been procedurally sensible to have a different motion which would have allowed some division and separate debates on some of the Bills. The major elements in our discussions on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Clyde Port Authority Bill could perhaps have gone together because many of the principles arising from them are the same.
It is because the motion relates to the port authority Bills and because they are obnoxious in nature that we should not pass it. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to go into detail about those obnoxious provisions, so I simply direct hon. Members to the Committee reports and to our earlier debates in which they were spelt out in considerable detail.
I also oppose the motion insofar as it relates to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, of which i have some knowledge because I served on the Committee dealing with it, because that Bill has already had its chance. Unless I hear some special reason today as to why we should pass the revival motion—I prefer to call it a Lazarus motion, as it brings the Bill back from the dead to pass it on to the Lords—I do not see why we should do so. No Conservative Member has sought to argue the merits of the procedure in which we are engaged. It has been said that as it is only procedure we should let it slip through, out of courtesy to the House of Lords. However, we are here not for purposes of courtesy but for serious investigation of legislation.
The THPA Bill has had its chance. It was deposited in the House on 27 November last year and went to Committee on 15 May. There were seven Committee meetings up to 6 June and a disastrous decision was made in Committee, with the Chairman's casting vote, that Committee members would not visit Tees and Hartlepool to see what they were talking about and meet the community in the district. That procedural nonsense led to two Labour Committee members walking out and insisting that the visit should take place. They were not seeking to hold up the Committee's procedures, but were concerned that they should do their duty before making their final decision. It took seven weeks for that trip to be organised and the day after it took place the matter went back to Committee, on 25 July. If the decision taken in Committee had been to allow the visit to stand, it would have done so the week following 6 June, there would have been substantially more time in which to deal with the measure and pass it to the Lords, and we could have made progress by now.
The Bill's statute of limitations has run out and we should not seek to revive it. It has been said that the Bill has been superseded by a measure in the Queen's Speech, which I believe is one of the most important provisions. The Tees and Hartlepool Bill, and the trouble that it caused, might have been one of the factors which led the


Government to decide to include the other measure in the Queen's Speech. Having been included in the Queen's Speech, that provision should have superseded the Bill.
We need to sort out trusts. There has been a statement in the House today, and we are establishing a new range of trusts related to the national health service. It was said that Hospitals would not opt out but that trusts would operate—but who can trust the trusts when they operate like those at Clyde and at Tees and Hartlepool have done and seek their own privatisation provisions in future. It seems that that pattern is likely to follow in the health service.
We should reject the measure above all because it is a Government Bill in all but name, behind which lie all sorts of Government involvement and manipulation. That has come from the Department of Transport, which encouraged the trust authorities of Clyde, and of Hartlepool and Tees to bring the measure forward. When the authorities failed to advance at sufficient speed, pressure was brought to ensure decisions which were carried on casting votes. The Government took over the measure when they realised that the other trust port provisions in this country would result in long-drawn-out processes. It is therefore most important that we should reject the motion.

Mr. Thomas Graham: In speaking against the revival motion, I should say that not one Member of Parliament from the banks of the River Clyde supports the privatisation of the Clyde port authority or has spoken in favour of it. I am deeply disappointed that the Bill's sponsor is not here to listen to some of the arguments put to stop the Bill going to the Lords.
It is appalling that the work force in the Clyde port authority is not to have control of the livelihood of its members. That matter should have been included in the Bill. Only last week, some of my constituents asked me what would happen to the profit from the sale of land that they had thought, for years and years, belonged to the public—the people of Renfrew, Glasgow and Inverclyde. Land that has belonged to the people of our areas is disappearing. This Bill is another rip-off; it is a disastrous step, which will lead to the shabby treatment of the Clyde. It will lead to the same sort of disasters as have happened along the banks of the Thames in London. We do not want that in Scotland. The River Clyde could and should be one of the most beautiful rivers in the country.
This is not the way forward for the people of the River Clyde and of Scotland. Time is not on my side, so I cannot say all that I should have liked to say against the revival motion. We are doing a disservice to the members of the public who fought for years to make the Clyde renowned. We have seen the demise of shipbuilding there, but I hope that the river can be cleared up and put to better use. Whether we like it or not, the Clyde port authority is one of the major landowners on the Clyde and the greedy vultures are ready to descend, eager to take its huge assets into private hands. I hope that the Minister has listened to those points.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The outstanding feature of the debate has been the fact that we have not heard a solitary speech by a Conservative Member in support of any of these measures having fresh life breathed into them. We heard briefly from the Minister, although not as briefly as he had intended, but apart from that there has been nothing but the silence of the grave. Tory Members know that they can sit back and the work will be done for them by other forces.
Throughout most of the debate none of the sponsors of these Bills has been present, although two of them now are. It is particularly fascinating to wonder who the sponsor of the Clyde Port Authority Bill will be. In its first existence, its sponsor was the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has been exalted to great heights recently. Such is his commitment to the future of the Clyde port, such is his genuine interest in the matter—he has been trying to put the Bill through the House for a year—such is his enthusiasm for the benefits to come to the industry of Scotland, for which he now has ministerial responsibility, and such is his sincerity that I understand that throughout these proceedings he has been in the Strangers Dining Room.
That shows what a con the Bills are. Little private vested interests controlled by people with an eye on the main chance nobble a Member and say, "Look pal, you put the Bill through for us, and once the arrangements have been made, who knows what will come out the other end?" The hon. Member for Eastwood has found his advancement in another form, so we wonder who will take the Bill forward. Will it be the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), or will it perhaps be the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)? After that we begin to run out of Scottish Tory Members—the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is a decent cove who would have nothing to do with the business. Who else is there? That is probably the greatest decision that the Clyde port authority has had to take for some time: to whom to pass the baton to take the Bill through the House?
We have heard much about the port authorities on many nights similar to this, and fortunately, due to the efforts of Opposition Members, the private Bills have not yet gone through. We assure Conservative Members that we shall continue to mount as much opposition as possible.
I happen to know a wee bit about the Shard Bridge Bill. Many hon. Members may wonder what the Shard Bridge Bill is and may reasonably wonder what I know about it. I know about it because I was appointed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills. I understand that people are paid large amounts to present Bills and to turn up and confront the members of such Committees. Like the three wise monkeys, the members of the Committee are supposed to nod the Bills through. We nodded through some fairly major Bills and then the Shard Bridge Bill came up. I asked what it was all about and I also asked what Shard was all about. I found that the Shard bridge is a toll bridge in the north-west of England. I also found that the purpose of the Bill was to increase the share capital of the Shard Bridge Company, which is doubtless owned by the great and good of Shard and the surrounding precincts.

Mr. Richard Holt: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:-

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 43.

Division No. 18]
[9.55 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Kennedy, Charles


Alexander, Richard
Kilfedder, James


Amos, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Arbuthnot, James
Knapman, Roger


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Knowles, Michael


Ashby, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Batiste, Spencer
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lightbown, David


Beggs, Roy
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Beith, A. J.
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Major, Rt Hon John


Benyon, W.
Marland, Paul


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Maude, Hon Francis


Boswell, Tim
Miller, Sir Hal


Bottomley, Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bowis, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bright, Graham
Monro, Sir Hector


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Morrison, Sir Charles


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Moss, Malcolm


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Neubert, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Nicholls, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Butcher, John
Paice, James


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Patnick, Irvine


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Carrington, Matthew
Riddick, Graham


Cash, William
Ryder, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Sackville, Hon Tom


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Colvin, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Sims, Roger


Cope, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Squire, Robin


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Stern, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Stevens, Lewis


Fallon, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Summerson, Hugo


Fookes, Dame Janet
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Forth, Eric
Thorne, Neil


Fox, Sir Marcus
Trippier, David


Franks, Cecil
Trotter, Neville


Freeman, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Gale, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Gill, Christopher
Waller, Gary


Goodlad, Alastair
Warren, Kenneth


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Watts, John


Hague, William
Wheeler, Sir John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Wood, Timothy


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)



Holt, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mr. Peter Thurnham and Mr. Tony Durant.


Irvine, Michael



Janman, Tim





NOES


Adams, Mrs. Katherine
Cryer, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dixon, Don


Buckley, George J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Eastham, Ken


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flynn, Paul


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Derek


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clelland, David
Graham, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Haynes, Frank


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Doug





Hood, Jimmy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Vaz, Keith


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Walley, Joan


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Leadbitter, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Worthington, Tony


McMaster, Gordon
Wray, Jimmy


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Nellist, Dave
Tellers for the Noes:


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Stuart Bell and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 44.

Division No. 19]
[10.08 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Irvine, Michael


Amess, David
Janman, Tim


Amos, Alan
Kilfedder, James


Arbuthnot, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Knapman, Roger


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Ashby, David
Knowles, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lawrence, Ivan


Batiste, Spencer
Lee, John (Pendle)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Beggs, Roy
Lightbown, David


Beith, A. J.
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Major, Rt Hon John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Maude, Hon Francis


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Miller, Sir Hal


Boswell, Tim
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bottomley, Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bowis, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Bright, Graham
Morrison, Sir Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Paice, James


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Patnick, Irvine


Burt, Alistair
Porter, David (Waveney)


Butcher, John
Riddick, Graham


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ryder, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Carrington, Matthew
Shaw, David (Dover)


Cash, William
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Chapman, Sydney
Sims, Roger


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Cope, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Stern, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Stevens, Lewis


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Durant, Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Fallon, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Favell, Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Fookes, Dame Janet
Thorne, Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Trotter, Neville


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Forth, Eric
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Waller, Gary


Franks, Cecil
Warren, Kenneth


Freeman, Roger
Watts, John


Fry, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Gale, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Goodlad, Alastair
Wood, Timothy


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Hague, William



Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mr. Peter Thurnham and Mr. Christopher Gill.


Holt, Richard



Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)





NOES


Adams, Mrs. Katherine
Bell, Stuart


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)






Buckley, George J.
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McFall, John


Canavan, Dennis
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McMaster, Gordon


Clelland, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Maxton, John


Cousins, Jim
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Dalyell, Tarn 
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Vaz, Keith


Eastham, Ken
Walley, Joan


Flynn, Paul
Wareing, Robert N.


Foster, Derek
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wilson, Brian


Graham, Thomas
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Haynes, Frank
Wray, Jimmy


Henderson, Doug



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Terry Lewis.


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [12 November] as relates to the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Shard Bridge Bill be now considered.

The House accordingly proceeded to consider so much of the said Message.

Ordered,
That the promoters of the Bills may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bills, in the present Session; and the Petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bills shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Overseas Government Debts

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That the draft Debts of Overseas Governments (Determination of Relevant Percentage) Regulations 1990, which were laid before the House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The regulations form part of the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on Budget day, which were discussed thoroughly during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. The proposals introduced some changes to the tax treatment of doubtful sovereign debt; they are now contained in the Finance Act 1990.
Tax law allows relief for doubtful debt up to the amount estimated to be bad. While that works reasonably well for most debt, it proved very difficult to make accurate estimates of the amount of sovereign debt that will not be repaid, and large changes in estimates can have a significant effect on Exchequer receipts. As a result, we introduced some changes.
The new system preserves the principles on which tax relief is based, but will give greater certainty about tax deductions, and phases the cost of large changes to the Exchequer. It lays down rules—contained in the regulations—for calculating the maximum amount of debt eligible for relief, and sets some limit to the amount of relief allowable in any one year.
The regulations set the rules for measuring the extent to which a particular debt is irrecoverable. More specifically, they set the relevant percentage that is the maximum amount that can be allowed as a deduction for tax purposes. Each debt will be measured against the factors set out in schedule 1 of the regulations. Scores will be allocated, and the total score will be converted to give the maximum percentage of debt allowable as a deduction.
The regulations are broadly similar to the Bank of England's guidelines to banks on what provisions they should make on prudential grounds. Those guidelines are known as the matrix. One of the ways in which the regulations differ from that matrix is their exclusion of one of the more subjective factors, which requires an assessment of a country's present and future economic and political conditions. They set a definite percentage of debt that is tax-deductible, whereas the Bank of England matrix provides bands within which provisions for a country might be expected.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does not the presence of a Treasury Minister demonstrate the scale of the problem? Should not an Overseas Development Minister be dealing with the debate? Does not that show that the Treasury is the prime motivator behind policy in this important area, rather than Foreign Office Ministers—particularly the Minister for Overseas Development?
Charities and other outside bodies interested in overseas development have alleged that the Treasury is interfering, and is preventing Government from making the right decisions and adopting the right approach. Does not the presence at the Dispatch Box of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury prove their case conclusively?

Mr. Maude: It would be rather eccentric for a Minister other than a Treasury Minister to come to the House of Commons to introduce Inland Revenue regulations.
The Inland Revenue published the regulations for consultation, and we have accommodated most of the helpful and constructive comments that we received. The draft version that we are debating tonight forms an integral part of the changes that we have introduced to the tax treatment of doubtful sovereign debt. The regulations will, I believe, bring welcome certainty to what has been a very uncertain area of tax law.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: That was an unusually brief ministerial introduction.
The current debt crisis is clearly devastating. In the words of Luis da Silva, a prominent Brazilian trade unionist,
The Third World War has begun. A quiet war that is destroying Brazil, Latin America, and nearly the whole of the Third World. Instead of soldiers, it is the children who are dying. Instead of the wounded, there are millions of unemployed and the old. Instead of broken bridges, we see broken factories, schools, hospitals and whole economies…This war uses debts and interest as its most important weapon, and it is a more deadly weapon than the atom bomb.
Lula, as Luis da Silva is known in Brazil, and the children, the unemployed, the sick and the mothers struggling to cope have not been invited to the debate tonight. They are not able to contribute, but their lives are affected by the numbers and percentages that we are discussing.
Perhaps, in the view of Conservative Members, we are talking only about relevant percentages as a basis for granting tax relief on bad debts owed to Britain's commercial banks. We believe that we are talking about debt relief or, more specifically, the lack of it and the fact that millions of people are suffering unemployment, ill health and plummeting living standards because their Governments are handing over their nations' wealth to creditors.
In this debate, the creditors under consideration are the commercial banks. But I hope that we shall on future occasions debate the debts owed to Governments too. But of all the major actors in the debt crisis, the banks bear the greatest responsibility and have suffered least. At present, the Third world owes $338 billion to the commercial banks. United Kingdom banks have the third largest share, after the United States and Japan. Last year alone, commercial banks worldwide received $20 billion more from poor countries than they gave in new loans.
The effect of that transfusion from south to north has been a roll-back of development in Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia. Decades of progress have been undone. Income has fallen back to the levels of the mid-1970s in real terms. As Governments spend more and more on servicing the debt, the percentage of their budgets spent on health has fallen on average by a half in Latin America and the Caribbean. Infant mortality and malnutrition have risen alarmingly.
I cite as an example the Philippines and the debts incurred during the Marcos era. Debt servicing grew from 11 per cent. of the Government budget in 1980 to 46 per cent. in 1986—the same percentage of the budget that the British Government allocated that year to our defence, education, social security, welfare and housing.
As debt servicing soared, spending on social services in the Philippines sank by more than a third in real terms. Not surprisingly, by 1985 the percentage of families living in poverty in the Philippines had risen to 59 per cent. and real incomes were back to their 1975 levels. A quarter of all children in that agricultural land are now malnourished. As half the population are children, the on-going austerity, poverty and malnutrition will have enormous implications for future generations.
With Latin America dependent on exports of primary commodities for three-quarters of its export earnings, it is not surprising that the scramble for foreign exchange has encouraged the plundering of natural resources and the destruction of fragile environments. As the Brundtland report put it:
Latin America's natural resources are being used not for development or to raise living standards, but to meet the financial requirements of industrialised country creditors.
I am speaking from the Dispatch Box tonight because we in the Opposition are talking about development and how to get it started again. I only wish that Conservative Members took the same view. Have they listened to the views of their Minister for Overseas Development, or has the Foreign Office not even bothered to explain that the number-crunching in the Treasury is crushing people's lives in the third world? If the Conservative party was to put overseas development in the Cabinet—giving it the sort of priority that the Labour party gives it—the Minister would perhaps have more clout in arguing for more money for the poor.
The 1990s will not be any better than the lost decade of the 1980s unless substantial and comprehensive debt relief is achieved. I accept that it will not solve all the problems of the third world. As Filipinos know, economic mismanagement and corruption, with earthquakes and hurricanes, do enormous damage. But however good the Government, the weather or world markets, there is no chance of stability and prosperity across the south without substantial debt relief. Western Governments must take action now to secure it.
We are discussing a statutory instrument that could be an instrument of debt relief. Our long-term aim is to reduce debt to the level at which developing countries can sustain regular payments without overburdening their economies and their people. The figures in the statutory instrument and in the Bank of England matrix give an estimate of their ability to do exactly that. Our long-term aim should be to reduce debt by the percentages that the Treasury and the Bank of England have supplied. Just imagine—a British Government official guide to debt relief! I am sorry to say that all we can do at the moment is imagine. The Government refused to seize the opportunity to encourage debt relief when they voted down Labour's amendments to the Finance Bill. They a re happy to sit back handing out tax relief to commercial banks and to watch the poor of the third world suffer.
Under British tax law, the Government are granting tax relief to commercial banks on the considerable provisions that they have set aside to cover doubtful debts to developing countries. According to this statutory instrument, provisions of about 50 per cent. of toal loans to developing countries will be regarded as bad, and therefore eligible for tax relief. The banks write down the debt in their accounting books and claim tax relief on the so-called loss. In practice, they do not write down the debt, but claim the full amount of the original debt from the


developing country. Having protected shareholders by making provisions, they can take a tougher negotiating stance with their impoverished debtors.
The amount of tax relief given on banks' provisions in 1988 is estimated to be about £1·7 billion—more than the Government spent on the entire third world aid programme. It is estimated that, last year, Barclays claimed £305 million in tax relief on its provisions against doubtful country debt; NatWest claimed £395 million; Lloyds claimed £453 million; and Midland claimed £184 million. That must be a ludicrous situation. The British taxpayer is subsidising the profits of United Kingdom banks but discouraging them from using those provisions to reduce Third-world debt. In other countries, such as the United States and Belgium, tax relief is not granted until debt reduction has been agreed by the banks.
Labour's proposal is to make tax relief conditional on the provisions being translated into debt relief. Debts must be written down in practice, not just in the books. If no debt relief is granted within, say, two years, the tax relief should be clawed back. Tax relief is supposed to be for irrecoverable debts. If part of the debt is truly irrecoverable, the banks should be willing to cancel that part.
The tiny change that the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced in this year's Budget discriminates for the first time between a commercial sale of discounted debt and a sale to the debtor Government, which therefore contributes to debt relief. I welcome that recognition that tax law can be used to encourage debt relief, but the change does nothing to encourage the many other methods of reducing debt servicing, nor to encourage banks to use the enormous provisions already set aside for debt relief up to the prescribed levels.
The Brady plan and this year's World Development Movement report called on Governments to use tax, regulatory and other measures to encourage debt relief, yet the Government, who say that they support the Brady plan, refuse to take even this tiny step. Our proposal would cost the taxpayer nothing and would help debtor nations, yet still the Government reject it. In practice, the proposal might save the Treasury money, as banks would not get tax relief if they refused to grant debt relief.
What objections to the plan could the Government possibly have? Someone may tell me that the charity laws are generous enough and that the banks can claim tax relief if they donate debts to charity, as the Midland bank did to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. However, such donations are insignificant compared with the mountain of debt. I am not asking the banks for charity; I am simply asking that they take their share of responsibility. Surely the tax laws should enforce that responsibility.
Some will argue that the banks cannot afford to give debt relief. Do hon. Members really think that the people in the debtor countries should pay if that means untold damage to their development? United Kingdom banks have now set aside a provision of up to 70 per cent. of their third world loans. They could afford to reduce them by that much if only there were a mechanism to bring that about. In 1988, the profits of the big four United Kingdom

banks were £4·4 billion, and around 30 per cent. of that came from international operations. While the Third world suffers, the banks continue to rake in the profits.
Some hon. Members may question why banks should have to share the costs of bad loans. To put it another way, why should millions of people overseas sacrifice their poor living standards, their health and their education to repay loans, many of which have brought them no benefit? Let us consider the example of the Bhattan nuclear power station in the Philippines, which has cost $2·3 billion so far. Loans have come from Barclays bank, among others, and interest payments on the loan are $350,000 each day. That is about $2,000 since I started speaking in this debate.
The power station stands on a seismic fault, and it is far too dangerous ever to be switched on. Just keeping it idle but safe requires 400 engineers. Allegations of corruption and malpractice are still being investigated. The commercial banks expect the Filipinos to pay for that monstrous monument to mismanagement. Why should creditor banks and contractors, who either knew or should have known what they were funding, not take their fair share?
I anticipate that Conservative Members will say, "Oh no. Voluntary debt relief is very nice, but it is not for the Government to intervene. Commercial debt is a matter for creditors and debtors." What rubbish. Governments have been intervening in the commercial debt crisis all along, but to protect the banks and not to help the poor. Taxpayers are already bailing out the banks with tax subsidies. The whole idea of the Baker plan and of the Brady plan was for Governments to support commercial debt reduction even if that were done through voluntary market measures. Debt deals go hand in hand with International Monetary Fund instructions on economic reform and are now often supported by the IMF or by the World bank. That Governments are intervening is not in question. The question is, "Is not it time that this Government started using regulations to help indebted nations instead of just boosting the banks?"
A new instrument of debt relief is essential because the debt relief measures used so far have been welcome small steps, but have not gone nearly far enough. The Brady plan has not even lived up to its own modest expectations. Nicholas Brady was aiming at a 20 per cent. reduction in commercial debt in three years, but the banks have been slow to make reductions in debt and in debt servicing. Hence the estimates of the International Institute of Finance show that debt reductions through debt swaps and other Brady measures in the current year amount to about $22 billion, only 10 per cent. of the total commercial debt owed by Latin America and the Caribbean. In contrast, David Knox, former vice-president of the World bank for Latin America, warned us only last summer that Latin America needs a 70 to 80 per cent. reduction in commerical debt if there is to be any prospect of sustained economic growth.
For the low income countries not covered by the Brady plan, a reduction in their $6 billion commercial debt is also vital. Although small compared to their official debt, the commercial debts are blocking desperately needed trade credits. The World bank's facility established to buy up those debts from the private banks at high discounts is not working because the banks refuse to play ball.
We must now also consider eastern Europe. Poland is struggling with a $40 billion debt which brings the case for debt relief even nearer to home. Only Government action


will ensure significant commercial debt relief. Only Governments, not banks, can take the lead, co-ordinate the banks and ensure that the burden is shared internationally.
The central point is not difficult to grasp even if the implications are far-reaching. The Prince of Wales made the point well recently when he said:
Most of all, we have to find a way of doing something about the burden of international debt. I really don't see how developing countries can be expected to achieve sustainable development and at the same time meet huge debt repayments.
If there is to be any hope for development in the 1990s, debt relief is essential. The Government should realise that there are several policies that they could and should implement. First, tax relief on provisions set aside by commercial banks should he made conditional on debt relief. Debts must be written down in practice, not just on paper.
Secondly, new procedures must be established to adjudicate on illegitimate debts involving allegations of corruption such as the $200B7;3 billion nuclear power station in the Philippines to which I referred.
Thirdly, the Government should consider establishing a special scheme to give additional debt relief to finance environmental protection measures in developing countries. That should apply not just to national parks but to major reforms such as agrarian reform aimed at reducing a country's dependence on exploiting and exporting natural resources and finding sustainable livelihoods for the poor.
Fourthly, Governments should revise the instructions to the IMF and the World bank so that they can be more assertive in pursuing debt reduction.
Fifthly, the Government must back international debt relief initiatives with legislation and regulations that ensure that all commercial banks take their share of the burden.
Finally, new initiatives on commercial debt must be accompanied by substantial action on official debt. The new Trinidad terms are another welcome small step., but they leave out many countries. They also leave out the EEC and World bank debt and they leave too much debt still to be paid by the very poorest of all.
In his speech setting out the Trinidad terms for dealing with debt owed by the poorest countries to Governments and official agencies, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
I would look for a comparable response from the banks in the claims they hold.
If the Government want to show how seriously they take their new Prime Minister's words, they could start translating those hopes into regulations to promote reductions in commercial debt.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have just heard a pretty lightweight speech. The key issue is what rate of tax relief we should allow.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You are stupid.

Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) had been in the House not for six years, as is the case, but for 16 years——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You are stupid. You do not understand.

Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) were to listen for a while, he might learn something. In the years he failed to get elected as the Member for Workington, he would have seen the overseas aid budget under the Labour Government being used to build ships for Poland. That was criticised at the time by people in the aid lobby, and most Labour Members felt ashamed at what their own Government had done.
The hon. Lady—if she ever becomes Labour Minister for Overseas Development, whether in the Cabinet or not—should know that her predecessor went to India before 1979 and did a deal with the then Indian Minister for Industry. Off the Indian central plan, they arranged to build a steelworks where it should not have been built in the constituency that the Indian Minister hoped to pick up because he was so unpopular in the one that he was going to have to leave. That is the way the Labour party worked in government.
It is worth recognising that we need a package of measures. I am pleased that the British Government started writing off debt to the poorest countries, and Britain was one of the first countries to do that. I am displeased that we are not meeting the United Nations target to which we are committed. I hope that one of the things that we shall do is to rediscover that we have betrayed our promise of 0·7 per cent. of gross national income. It does not help to have sanctimonius pap from the Opposition and from people who should know better.
According to the Baptist Times, the principal of London Bible college, Dr. Peter Cotterell, said:
the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost 'not for party tricks"'.
Next to that article is a photograph of the director of Christian Aid, Michael Taylor, who, in an advertisement for the Labour party—as a private individual, of course, not as the director of Christian Aid—said that he hoped that everyone would support the Labour party. That statement appeared in the Baptist Times, and it is similar to an advertisement in the Church of England newspaper, which had a similar open letter from Eric James. On the same page there is a quotation from the Church Army saying that a photograph appearing in one of its publications meant that
several readers said they would not support its work because 'it was a political act to publish a photograph'".
If that principle works with other political issues, it works just as well when people such as the director of Christian Aid make the mistake of confusing his role in trying to add to the Government's help to Third-world development. The reaction of people such as myself should be to send an extra donation to Christian Aid and point out that the man has made a mistake, and perhaps on reflection he will begin to recognise it.
Having spent some time on the Select Committee which examined overseas development, examining the Labour Government's record and using the same criteria to judge the present Government's record, I know that it is clear that more needs to be done. Part of that process is to see whether commercial institutions such as the banks will continue to lend money overseas. If there is no way of dealing with doubtful debts, they are not likely to lend more money. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley, in her 20-minute speech, signally failed to deal with future lending by banks.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: She made five points—didn't you hear?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Workington should try to listen with his ears rather than his mouth. During the Workington by-election the hon. Gentleman went around shouting off in his own constituency and failed to get elected. If he goes on like that, he may fail to get re-elected next time.
The hon. Lady failed to deal with future lending by commercial banks. Unless there is a way of dealing with the tax consequences of doubtful debts, they will be unable to do so. That is a purely practical point, which is no doubt above Labour Members' heads. There is the general point about overseas development and about grants and loans.
It is clear that much of the money that other countries need will have to be either in grants or in low-interest loans. It is wrong that domestic difficulties in the United States, in this country and in other countries in Europe, which have led to higher interest rates than expected, should have added significantly to the cost of loans given or provided to industries in other countries or to their Governments. It is better to face those facts openly than to try to twist the debate, which is on a specific tax point, into a general overseas development debate.
The problem with the overseas development debate was faced by the World Development Movement 10 years ago, when it was saying—as I was—that we should meet the 0·7 per cent. target, but three months before, it put out a call to everyone in Britain voluntarily to provide an extra £20 a year. Only 600 people provided that £20 voluntarily, and that is only one third of the extra sum that we are asking from the 56 million people of the United Kingdom. Unless and until we can give a better lead with our voluntary donations, we shall find it difficult to keep the Government up to the mark on their public commitment.
I hope that in future, when we have a serious debate on overseas development, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley will take a slightly different approach. I hope, too, that the hon. Member for Workington will try to join a serious movement which is concerned with taxation and with our obligations as a part of one world to those who are like us, but who are not living in the United Kingdom with the benefit of the economic growth that we have enjoyed over the past 10 years.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I shall restrain myself and not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). It is only right that we in this place should be constructive on the issue.
Only about four hours ago, when a debate was taking place on the common agricultural policy, it was possible to draw a vivid contrast between the enormous sums that was then being discussed—80 per cent. is directed to intervention while 20 per cent. goes to the farmers, and in this country 80 per cent. of the subsidies go to 20 per cent. of the richest farmers—and no response to the needs of the Third world. There is an astonishing difference between the sums that deliberately we throw away in funding the CAP and those that we make available to the Third world.
I wish to direct a few remarks to the newly underdeveloped countries of eastern Europe. We have an as yet recognised debt to that part of Europe. The Conservatives milked the position in which it found itself——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must have regard to the terms of the regulations.

Mr. Flynn: I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said about using the tax system as an instrument for assisting with debt relief. Every one of the eastern European countries is very different from its neighbours, but loans are being paid and I hope that we shall make loans in future. The collapse of eastern Europe will involve us within the terms of the motion and in terms of future policy. It is——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The regulations deal neither with future situations nor with hypotheses.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I help my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Paul Flynn.

Mr. Flynn: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There will be authorities and organisations in eastern Europe that will have borrowed and that will be unable to service their debts. Those who have lent to them within the United Kingdom, who take the form of banks, will probably claim relief. It is probable that such claims have already been made under the regulations that we are discussing. I refer my hon. Friend to the first paragraph of the explanatory note, which sets out the position and the background to the argument that he advanced.

Mr. Flynn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
The scale of the dilemma that faces eastern Europe is one that is not recognised. We can use our tax system and tax instruments to aid the countries of eastern Europe in the repayment of loans and to encourage joint ventures.
The countries of eastern Europe face the triple task of building democracies, becoming independent and creating new market systems. In addition, they face the consequences of a collapsing Soviet economy, with all the lines of supplies and materials coming to an end. There is also the Gulf crisis, which has increased the price of oil to an almost impossible level for eastern Europe. I urge Conservative Members to understand that the know-how funds that the Government have made available to only a few countries amount to a modest contribution that is entirely out of scale to the disaster that is about to overtake eastern Europe. They should look at the problems of eastern Europe, particularly the Soviet Union.
The Conservative party has long had an infatuation with, and a belief in, the infallibility and omnipotence of Mikhail Gorbachev; only now is it finally recognising that he is responsible for economic chaos in that great empire. Some 13 of the 15 republics have announced that they wish to leave the empire and have some scale of independence. They all believe that they are putting a large piece of meat in the pot and receiving a small piece out of it.
While I realise that the instrument applies primarily to the banking system and the enormous problems of the third world, I urge the Government to recognise the magnitude of the problems emerging in eastern Europe.


They should use our taxation and banking systems in an imaginative and creative way to help those countries and aid them in creating their new democracies.

11 pm

Mr. John McFall: I am pleased to be speaking in the debate.
Two relevant events have occurred in the past two months. The first was when I visited Sussex university with some of my hon. Friends. We attended a week-long seminar at the institute of development studies and considered third-world problems. The overriding message from the academics and experts was that the third world's position is decreasing year by year.
Secondly, my interest was stimulated by correspondence from Christian Aid setting out its campaign on banking on the poor against third-world debt. It is worthy to bring that message to the attention of all parliamentarians, despite the words of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). This is too important a subject to start putting one side against the other. Let us consider Third-world debt and our own responsibility, and fashion a policy that will help the third world. The debate should be taken forward on that basis.
A quotation that aroused my concern was uttered by one of the Catholic bishops in south America, the general secretary of the Latin American Council of Churches, Bishop Federico Pagura. He said:
The debt is killing and it is killing in earnest, literally thousands and thousands of people in Latin America.
The link between that statement and tonight's debate is that when we are aware that our high street banks and tax relief system involve some of the creditors who show no mercy, we simply cannot ignore the challenge. We must look at the systems of tax and tax relief if we are to help third-world countries. Another phrase used by a Churchman from Latin America was that we are all on the Titanic, but some of us are travelling first class. We are travelling first class, but to the same end as the other travellers if we do not heed the position of the Third-world countries.
As a result of the Christian Aid campaign appeal, I wrote to every church in my constituency, contacted the local Christian Aid branch through its secretary, Tim Rhead and received responses from the third world. My message to the Churches is to write letters to me so that I can seek meetings with the relevant chairmen of banks in Scotland and England, put the constituents' case to them and send the Minister the letters from the concerned Christians and constituents so that action occurs as a result of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Eltham spoke of 600 responses, which is a problem. But we should try to obtain 6,000 or 60,000 responses. We can do that tonight by highlighting our concerns about the third world and starting a campaign to arouse the interests of the commercially minded in the banks and the Government.
Third-world countries have suffered greatly since 1975. We all know about the quadrupling of the price of oil. Mexico is repaying £1 billion in interest every month, and it still owes more than it borrowed in the first place. The effect in Mexico, Brazil and other Third-world countries has been that, since the mid-1970s, their income has dropped by 20 per cent. Fewer children in those countries go to school, and UNICEF estimates that the debt crisis is costing about 500,000 young lives a year.
That catastrophe can be reversed only if something is done about the burden of debt. I echo what the hon. Member for Eltham said about Governments of the past, of whatever hue, having been responsible for the catastrophe. I beg the Government, because they are in power now, to do something positive.
Pastor Reginald Knowles of the Alexandria Christian Fellowship in my constituency lived in Guyana until a few years ago. He writes to me that it was a British colony until 1970. During his stay there he saw many sights that touched him deeply:
A child sleeping on the pavement next to its mother. Another child whose arm had been chewed through by a rat while he had been a patient in the Georgetown hospital child surgical ward.
He says that he spoke to some
nurses who were so demoralised with their pay—98 Guyanese dollars a week compared to the cost of an 8 oz jar of coffee, at 175 Guyanese dollars.
Given the increased lending by banks since the 1970s, and the drop in the price of commodities produced by third-world countries in the early 1980s, those nurses cannot even afford a jar of coffee.
That good pastor and his congregation have decided to send a full-time voluntary worker from my constituency, Ruth McEndoe from Dumbarton, to set up a charity.
I have not given the Minister notice of my next point, so it would be unfair to expect an immediate answer from him. Pastor Knowles says that the IMF and the World bank are engaged in an economic recovery programme that is due to provide $1 million in the form of grants, with the promise of another $2 million to come. Pastor Knowles says that there has been no mention of support for Guyana from Britain, and considering our past colonial links with that country, we should be ashamed of ourselves. What does the Minister think of that?
We should help countries such as Guyana in south America. We could invest large sums if only the banks could be persuaded to release the money. Banks are extremely important in all this. I do not want to score party political points, but it is a pity that the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is not here, since he is chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland. I shall write to him in the next few weeks, mentioning that British taxpayers are bailing out the banks.
Britain's four major high street banks, Lloyds, National Westminster, Midland and Barclays last year claimed relief for provision against Third-world debt that may eventually cost the average taxpayer £62·80. The Inland Revenue allows banks to claim relief at a rate of up to 35 per cent. on money set aside from their profits as insurance against bad debts in the third world. In 1989, the big four set aside £4·5 billion for that purpose, generating almost £1·7 billion in tax relief. That relief allows the banks to have their cake and eat it, providing them with public money to shore up their financial position but allowing them to continue to demand that countries such as Mexico pay their debts in full.
A tiny minority of debts have been reduced, but Third-world debt continues to grow and is spiralling. The banks are being subsidised by taxpayers, not for cancelling debts, but merely for assuming in the accounts that debts will not be repaid. Sad to say, the level of that public subsidy is higher than the amount that the Government spend on overseas aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) spoke about that. Official


development assistance in 1989 was £1·5 billion, costing each taxpayer £62·54. The tax relief to the big four banks was equal to £62·80 from each taxpayer.
In 1989, Lloyds set aside £1,763 million of debt provision. At 35 per cent. that represents tax relief of £617 million, equal to £24·49 for every taxpayer in the United Kingdom. National Westminster set aside £990 million, and tax relief on that is equal to £13·75 per taxpayer. Barclays bank set aside £983 million, and tax relief on that amounts to £13·65 for every taxpayer. Midland bank made a provision of £846 million, equal to £10·91 for every taxpayer. Those four high street banks set aside a total of £4·5 billion and received tax relief of more than £1·5 billion, resulting in £62·80 from each taxpayer. In the name of decency and morality, the Government should look at that and change the tax relief system.
I mentioned Brazil and Mexico. Brazil's foreign debt stands at US $120 billion, the biggest such debt in Latin America. No interest payments have been made since July 1989 and the Brazilian Government have said that none will be made for the remainder of this year. The Brazilian economy relies on huge imports of oil and is certain to be hit hard by the Gulf crisis. The Economy Ministry has calculated that this year's oil bill will be at least US $1 billion higher than forecast.
All concerned parliamentarians plead with the Government to do something about those problems. I leave the Minister with a Christian sentiment from Christian Aid. The bishop of a small industrial area near Rio de Janiero, Mauro Morelli, said:
In the gospel the bread was blessed, and divided for 5,000. In Brazil 5,000 people produce the bread and one person takes it.
We are party to that shameful state of affairs. On behalf of Christian Aid and the concerned Churches in my constituency, I plead with the Minister to look at the issue and say that that is no longer acceptable. He should then do something to help Third-world countries and show that Britain has some morality.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have heard some good speeches by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), especially on social policy and in the great debate in the early 1980s on child benefit, but I was appalled by his speech in this debate. I hope that, on reflection, he will apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). His approach was quite disgraceful.
The explanatory memorandum at the back of the statutory instrument states:
These regulations provide the method of determining the 'relevant percentage' in relation to a debt owed to a company …
I understand that the arrangements prior to the introduction of this instrument have been helpful to the banks. The statutory instrument that we are debating will help the Exchequer. The Labour party argues for a policy that will help the borrower.
The problem with the statutory instrument is that while it deals with some of the lenders' difficulties, it fails to deal with any of the borrowers' difficulties, the most important of which is invariably debt reduction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley referred to an example of such

a borrower, who was lent money by Barclays bank, which I understand in one year was able to claim £300 million of relief. No doubt, if I am wrong, it will write to tell me so. The example is that of the Bhattan power station in the Philippines, and it illustrates what is wrong with the arrangements for loans.
The power station cost $2·3 billion to build. I understand from research carried out by my hon. Friend's staff that it is not operational, and that the repayments on the loan, which was made by a number of organisations, including Barclays, are $350,000 per day. That is happening in a developing country with unstable political institutions and it is a classic example of what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the Arab countries used London and other international financial markets to recycle petrodollars, and the banks receiving those dollars spent them irresponsibly on investments, many of which could not be justified on reasonable economic and commercial criteria.
The problem is that, wherever those investments have taken place, and in whatever projects they have been invested, they have only added to political instability. The burden of servicing the debt invariably falls on the taxpayers or, if they are fortunate, on rescheduling, although many of these countries are not in a position to reschedule their debts. The repayments swallow a large proportion of public expenditure, so that expenditure that should go on social projects does not, which in turn heightens social tension and creates the political instability that many of my hon. Friends hope to see avoided.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, 46 per cent. of the budget of the Philippines is spent on servicing its debts to overseas banks and other commercial institutions. The United Kingdom has an annual public expenditure of £200 billion. If we had to pay such a large proportion of it in that way, £90 billion would be spent on servicing debts. It is an unreasonable burden for those countries to carry. If we were supporting a £90 billion debt-servicing arrangement, there would be a revolution. There would be gross political instability and violence in our streets. Governments would shake, be removed, replaced, and removed time and again as a result of the difficult social conditions.[Interruption.]
Conservative Members may laugh if they wish—I do not object to that—but such things are inconceivable in our democracy. To some extent, the reason why we have a democracy is that we do not have a level of debt which requires such a level of public expenditure to service it. The absence of such debt provides political stability at home, but a debt on the scale of that carried by the Philippines can only undermine that country's Government. That is why there have been repeated attempts to bring down the Aquino Government.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman may recall that this country did have crippling levels of debt, but we paid it off.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister is trying to score a political point. It is true that we have had large debts that we have had to repay, but never on the scale carried by Third-world countries—and never on such a scale that it threatened our very political stability.
I wish to relate the implications of that form of debt to another part of the world—eastern Europe—where huge political changes are taking place. I am sure that the Government are as aware as the Opposition of what might


happen if things went wrong. We see nightly on our television screens demonstrations, shortages of food, problems with distribution systems, and lack of managerial expertise in the development of market economy and private enterprise companies—all the deficiencies that we know make for political instability.
What worries me is not so much that money is going to eastern Europe—we want that—but that it will go into the wrong projects. If it is left completely to the free market, the danger is that the Bhattan nuclear power station syndrome could extend to parts of eastern Europe. Projects may be justified on some commercial basis, just as those managers who flew out of London in the early 1980s to invest petrodollars in other parts of the world somehow found commercial justification for the decisions that they were taking and the investments that they were recommending. That might happen in eastern Europe on a similar scale.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My shoulders are, I hope, broad enough to accept the insults that the hon. Gentleman doled out at the beginning of his speech. Had he listened rather than talking during my speech, he would have heard me say that we had been through this before. He is warning us of important issues. I raised the subject of what happened in the 1970s in an attempt to avoid it happening again, and I cited the two examples of eastern Europe and the Indian sub-continent. I hope that hon. Members will pay attention to this part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, as he is making an important point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I did hear the hon. Gentleman refer to those matters, despite my sedentary interventions.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the implications of the statutory instrument for investment in eastern Europe. Perhaps there will not be an investment on the scale that exists in other parts of the world, but the danger is that we might go down that road. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the extent to which we monitor decisions on commercial investments in eastern Europe. Due to a lack of knowledge of how the market works, deci sions could be taken, involving large amounts of money, which might at the end of the day need to be bailed out on the basis of a statutory instrument such as the one that we are now debating.

Mr. Maude: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I was mildly chided by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for the brevity of my opening remarks, but I spoke briefly because I spoke only about the regulations that are the subject of the debate, not about a number of other areas relating to the vexed issue of debt to which those regulations naturally lead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made a powerful speech, which carried all the more weight because of his long record of speaking out courageously on such issues. His remarks about Christian Aid were particularly cogent because of his long experience as a trustee and director of it. The House should listen with considerable respect to what he says.
There has been a good deal of talk about other debt initiatives; other things that should be done to sort out the problem. The Government have played an active role in supporting debt initiatives—contributions to the

International Monetary Fund and the World bank, support for the Paris club, our own debt initiative leading to the Toronto terms and the new Prime Minster's Trinidad initiative—all of which have been widely welcomed and are extremely valuable measures. We supported the Brady initiative which has led to substantial bank involvement in restructuring agreements in, for example, Mexico, the Philippines, Costa Rica and Venezuela. All that is important, but it has been done on a sensible and hard-headed case-by-case basis.
The idea that blanket debt forgiveness does any good is crazy. Where countries have got themselves into substantial economic difficulties, the voluntary undertaking by Governments of a proper adjustment programme to get their economies back in order must be a condition for any programme of debt restructuring. It is no kindness simply to forgive debt and allow economies to go on being mismanaged in the way that has led to the problems arising in the first place.
It was difficult to connect what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said with the image that the modern Labour party has sought to project—taking an interest in things such as markets, and so on. She sounded like an old-fashioned capitalist conspiracy theorist; it was all a plot got up by the banks in order to drag hapless innocent Governments into debt so that they could be sucked dry for ever more. The level of bad debt that has arisen is not such as to lend credence to the view that there has been a hugely effective conspiracy.
The fact is that the banks are a very convenient whipping boy for the Labour party. The venom with which the hon. Lady spoke about the banks, as though they had been going around forcing Governments to borrow money against their will when that was the last thing they wanted to do, would be laughable were it not that the circumstances that we are talking about are so serious.
What the Government have done has not been hugely dramatic, but it is commendable and it has made a significant difference. The regulations are an important measure. They lend certainty where there has been uncertainty and will help the countries which have some of this debt.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Financial Secretary deny that, during the 1970s, a large amount of this debt was run up by some fairly aggressive selling by the western banking institutions to the third world countries concerned? It is not right for him to place the blame—if blame has to be placed—entirely on the shoulders of the borrowers rather than the lenders, as he is seeking to do.
The hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to explain how the Treasury arrived at the matrix figures that it has put before us in the regulations. They are broadly in line with those in the Bank of England's matrix, but differ substantially—both up and down—on a country-by-country basis with the secondary market value of the debts of the countries in question. Can the Financial Secretary say how the Treasury arrived at its figures, and is he confident that they represent a proper and realistic assessment of the debts of the countries concerned?

Mr. Maude: There is no such thing as perfection in a calculation of that nature. However, the regulations were issued in draft form for consultation, and most of the representations received in response were contained in the


final draft. As to aggressive selling, it takes two to arrange a loan—one to lend, and one to borrow. And all of the borrowing was voluntary.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Debts of Overseas Governments (Determination of Relevant Percentage) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL

Ordered,
That any new Clause relating to capital punishment of which notice may be given not later than 12th December in respect of the Criminal Justice Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House; and that, when the Committee of the whole House have reported with respect to any such new Clause and the Standing Committee on the Bill have reported the Bill, the Bill be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

St. Quentin's Castle, Llanblethian

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Mr. John P. Smith: I am grateful and pleased that I was successful in the ballot for an Adjournment debate, because it gives me a chance to raise a matter of considerable importance not only to my constituents but nationally, and which has national implications.
I have just returned from making a site visit to St. Quentin's castle at Llanblethian, near Cowbridge, in my constituency, where I discussed with local residents, members of the history society, and other eminent individuals the threat under which that historic monument has been for many years. They are all gravely concerned about the castle's future, because its features include what is probably the only surviving gatehouse of its type. Comprising three storeys and underground vaults, it was built in the early 14th century, but still has two complete rooms.
The gatehouse is threatened by overgrowth, exposure to the elements, and because for no fewer than 30 years nothing has been done to protect or restore that important monument. It is a unique architectural example, and has a commanding view over the ancient borough of Cowbridge and the village of Llanblethian. It was built by Gilbert de Clare in the early 14th century, but sadly not finished because he fell at Bannockburn before construction of the castle was completed. It was inherited by the Lord of Glamorgan, who was the keeper of the realm in the actions of Edward II. That would, in common parlance, classify him as the deputy Prime Minister of his day. The castle was then taken over by a distinguished Glamorganshire family of French origin, the de Spensers, and has a fine tradition. It was lived in for hundreds of years before becoming a prison, and then served as a local amenity and open space for the people of Llanblethian until the 1960s.
So distinguished is the castle's history that we have managed to collect considerable support for its protection—not least from the recently deposed deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), once Member of Parliament from Port Talbot, whose family emanates from that part of the world. The campaign has also been supported by Lord Parry of Neyland, my predecessor Sir Raymond Gower, and most Members of Parliament whose constituences are adjacent to mine. That shows that this issue is not only important but all-party and, indeed, non-political. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some good news tonight, and tell me exactly what he and the Welsh Office intend to do. We have waited too long to find out.
It was 30 years ago that the Llanblethian community council first raised the matter with the Ministry of Works. The council was worried about the deterioration of this fine castle as a result of decades of neglect. Since then, the local history society, the borough council, the Women's Institute, the old Cowbridge borough council and Vale of Glamorgan borough council—and local residents, in a voluntary capacity—have all striven in their turn, and have used every official channel and every proper means available to them to ensure that works were carried out. Nevertheless, they failed.
One of the reasons for that failure was the fact that the land was acquired, in or around 1964, by a new owner who took over from the old family of Mansell Evan Edwards. In my view—and in that of most of the people who have tried to protect the monument—the landowner has deliberately obstructed their efforts. He has not co-operated with the bodies, both Government and voluntary, which have tried to get something done on the site, and despite every encouragement and inducement over a considerable period, not one piece of work has been carried out to protect, restore or renovate the building.
That is formidable record, and a disgraceful one; so disgraceful, indeed, that, in November 1983, the Minister himself, when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Wales, informed my predecessor that the Welsh Office had decided—presumably as a last resort—to acquire the castle and the site by compulsory purchase, with a view to carrying out immediate repair and renovation to protect the building. I stress the word "decided"—it was not a question of consideration. Now, almost exactly seven years later, not a thing has been done to protect the castle. We face the onset of winter, with frost, wind and rain, all of which will damage the fabric and structure of the building; yet it seems that, once again, nothing will be done.
In the past 15 months, I have involved myself in the campaign. In view of his early involvement in the matter, I wrote to the Minister of State to find out why the land had not been acquired, and what the Welsh Office intended to do about carrying out works and gaining access to the site. In April this year, the Minister wrote to me saying that the agents of the current landowner appeared to be very co-operative—or words to that effect—and seemed to have every intention of doing something; the Welsh Office therefore wished to give them the opportunity.
That will not wash. I believe that there have been at least seven efforts at drawing up programmes of repair in conjunction with the landowner, but he has no intention of carrying out any such work. Indeed, he is making a fool of the Welsh Office and running rings around Ministers—I could cite several examples to prove that.
Following the letter of 1983 to which I referred, Cadw said that the owner could not be traced or contacted. In 1976 the Department of the Environment referred to not being able to get access to the site. The minutes of a meeting of the Vale of Glamorgan borough council in 1983 recorded that it appeared that the landowner had no intention of co-operating with the Welsh Office to restore the building.
It seems that the landowner in question acquired a number of sites in the area—probably cheaply, considering the price of agricultural land in the mid-1960s—with a view to developing, and I believe that that is his view to this day. He is prepared to see that great monument deteriorate, and even be destroyed, so that he can develop there, as he has tried to do on land which he owns in the area and which, if it was deemed housing rather than agricultural land, would be worth a great deal of money.
Lest the Minister and his officials at the Welsh Office have any doubts about the landowner in question, we have a duty to draw attention to some of his activities and some of those of his family. They represent what I consider 'to be the unacceptable face of property developers, using tactics that we thought were well behind us and would not be considered acceptable in this day and age.
The brother of the chap about whom I am talking has a well known reputation in the nearby town of Penarth for openly destroying classic pieces of Edwardian architecture. He knew that what he had done was illegal and that he would be fined, but the fine bore no relation to the crime committed, so he was happy to destroy two buildings. He was the owner of a hotel of international acclaim in the same area, but some years ago it mysteriously burned down, much to the horror of the people of the area. I understand that he is currently facing action in the courts for committing an act of vandalism to part of our heritage—another unique piece of architecture.
The owner of the site to which I am drawing attention has a reputation such that local residents and activists are afraid to approach him. He is known for threats and strong-arm tactics. It is a sad and disgraceful record. They do not appear to me to be the sort of people with whom Ministers and the Welsh Office should be seeking to co-operate. As I said, they are running rings around Ministers and functionaries at the Welsh Office. The members of Cadw are also being made to look absolute fools.
I am not here tonight to castigate individuals, although in the last Session I tabled early-day motion 1007 which, being supported by some of my hon. Friends, criticised the Minister. I did so with some regret because, as he knows, I have much respect for the Minister, but I felt that we could not allow the situation to continue. It makes a mockery of the role of Government and of attempts to try to protect our heritage. I did that with a heavy heart, but I felt that it had to be done to continue to draw attention to this serious matter.
We must act quickly. The state of the castle, which I visited today, is worrying. Foliage and trees are growing from the structure of the building, and although it is a three-storey monument one can hardly see it because of the overgrowth. There is no fence to stop young children entering, so I presume that it is a dangerous site and that a serious accident could be caused. However, I do not want to give the landowner the excuse of allowing it to reach such a state that it has to be demolished and lost for ever. If we do not act quickly, we shall lose this fine monument, its architecture and its history. I do not think that the people of my constituency and of Wales would forgive the Welsh Office if it allowed that to happen.
Finally, I shall highlight what we are up against. I was recently in the area and, quite by coincidence, bumped into some American tourists who were, I am glad to say, staying there. The castle, of which they were aware, is a tourist attraction, but if it were restored it would be a far better tourist attraction. In discussing the problems that we face in trying to protect the monument, they could not believe that we could allow our heritage and our children's heritage to be threatened in this way. They have seen part of their heritage and indigenous culture destroyed. Many of the pioneers of north America left their heritage and history behind them. What would they give to have a castle 800 or more years old, built on original remains and with a history to be proud of oozing from it?
The castle has stood in that community for 700 or 800 years, but seven or eight years of inactivity, red tape and bureaucracy in the Welsh Office has allowed this unscrupulous landowner to get away with what he has been getting away with for the past 26 years. It is an outrage that a building which has stood for so long may be destroyed in such a short time.
I make a plea for the Minister to act, to acquire the site and the castle compulsorily and to undertaken the necessary repairs immediately.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) for raising this issue and for giving me the opportunity to set out the facts in this far from straightforward case. I have some news for him this evening.
St. Quentin's castle, on the outskirts of Cowbridge in South Glamorgan, is a scheduled ancient monument within the terms of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. As such, it enjoys statutory protection and, as with all scheduled monuments, work on it cannot be carried out without special permission from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. St. Quentin's castle is in private ownership.
St. Quentin's is a quadrilateral castle with a fine central gatehouse built in the 14th century for Gilbert de Clare, who was killed at the battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Typically of many monuments of that period, which have not benefited from a strategy for conservation, its general condition is poor. Tree growth and ivy have taken their toll.
The condition and custody of St. Quentin's castle have been a source of local concern for some 30 years. Nearly 10 years ago, particular concerns were expressed that the monument was deteriorating and in response to local anxieties, including representations from the late hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, Sir Raymond Gower, we looked very carefully at what might be done to safeguard its future. In 1983, I wrote to Sir Raymond and told him that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State had decided to seek the compulsory acquisition of the monument to ensure its long-term preservation.
Such action would have been a drastic step in that it would have involved denying the rights of a private owner. Indeed, during the passage of the 1979 Act, an undertaking was given to the House by the then Labour Administration. During the Bill's Second Reading, Mr. Kenneth Marks assured the House that powers of compulsory acquisition would never be used except when it was the only way of securing the preservation of a monument. That has seemed to us a sensible test and it is an undertaking that we have been happy to honour. The circumstances in which the powers to which I refer are used should be rare and the arguments for doing so must be fully tested. I think it would clearly be wrong to take action before other options had been exhausted.
At that time, we judged that the action referred to in my letter to Sir Raymond was appropriate. Restoration works had not been undertaken for many years and there seemed little likelihood that they would be. As a result, we had first to identify the legal owners—which was not without its difficulties—and secondly, to put it to them that they should carry out repairs. The owners' response was to tell us of their wish to take forward restoration—to a high standard—of the castle in their stewardship. Those assurances were renewed periodically as we went back to ask why action had not been taken. That work of any

consequence has not been carried out is a great disappointment and, in that, I share the frustrations of local people who value St. Quentin's.
During this year, there have been extensive discussions with the owners' agent. They culminated in an application for consent to undertake a programme of restoration work. That was received in early April and our formal consent was issued on 5 July 1990. The Vale of Glamorgan borough council has, we are told, been consulted on public safety and on the force of tree preservation notices. Those matters are very much for it and for the owners. A tree surgeon has provided advice on clearance of ivy and other vegetation that covers the castle. Regrettably, work has yet to start and, despite promises from the owners' agent that a programme of works would be shared with Cadw, no action has been taken. Our offers of grant assistance have not been taken up. In view of that, we have had to consider what further measures we might take to deal with the castle's plight.
The House will wish to be assured that officials from Cadw have met local people with a special interest in the site to advise them of our actions. The matter has also been considered by the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales at its summer meeting. Hon. Members will know that the board is our independent statutory advisory body on such matters.
To guide our deliberations, we asked for an up-to-date and detailed survey of the monument by the Department's specialists. The survey revealed that, while the structure of the gatehouse was generally sound, there were loose joints in the masonry at high level that required attention. Following a site meeting in October with the owners' agents, officials reported to us that there was no immediate prospect of an early start on the site and that with the approach of winter there were parts of the monument's fabric that needed to be dealt with more urgently.
As a result, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that, in the absence of works carried out by the owners, it was essential to use his statutory powers to undertake urgent repair works to St. Quentin's. The necessary legal notices have been dispatched. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have been closely in touch with the matter for some years and have kept him informed of all but those very latest developments. I have corresponded with him and, most recently, copied to him my letter of 21 November 1990 to Mr. Wayne David MEP.
The House will recognise from what I have reported that the welfare of an ancient monument cannot be safeguarded without due regard being paid to the interests of private owners. In considering this case, we have had to keep in view the physical condition of the monument. That we have done throughout the period since I wrote to Sir Raymond. We are satisfied that the owners have had every opportunity to carry out the urgent works for which our consent has been granted.
We are also satisfied that, unless action is taken now, the integrity of the monument will be threatened. That is why staff from Cadw's directly employed labour force will enter the site to undertake a programme of urgent works. Those works will comprise the removal of tree growth and ivy at the upper levels to the gatehouse and treatment of masonry to prevent its collapse. It will take about two weeks to complete. The cost of that work will be met by the Welsh Office.
That action is evidence of our regard for St. Quentin's castle. Once completed, the works will prevent further


deterioration of the monument for sufficient time for its future to be further considered with the owners. I do not rule out the use of compulsory purchase powers if that proves to be the only way to safeguard the monument. There remains, however, a range of options open to us short of that and we shall be exploring those further. It would be our preference to secure the monument's future through a voluntary arrangement, possibly through a guardianship arrangement, but the option of compulsory purchase will remain closely in view.
The Government are firmly committed to the protection of the built heritage. We attach considerable importance to the protection of sites such as St. Quentin's castle. Our action in carrying out repairs to that monument using Cadw's staff is clear evidence of that commitment.
We sometimes share the frustration of those who wish to see action taken without any delay, but we in Government cannot ride roughshod over the interests of the private owner. That is why we have been extremely patient in the case of St. Quentin's. We have afforded every opportunity for the owners to take forward the good intentions that they have consistently expressed. Indeed., I am convinced that the undertakings given to the House during the passage of the legislation required nothing less. We have allowed that opportunity and we are now taking action, which I believe the hon. Gentleman will welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.